Evidence Hub

Benchmarking viromics: an in silico evaluation of metagenome-enabled estimates of viral community composition and diversity

Simon Roux, Joanne Emerson, Emiley A. Eloe‐Fadrosh, Matthew B. Sullivan

PeerJ, 2017

360 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: mock viral communities to evaluate the viromic sequence-to-ecological-inference pipeline, including (i) read pre-processing and metagenome assembly, (ii) thresholds applied to estimate viral relative abundances based on read mapping to assembled contigs, and (iii) normalization methods applied to the matrix of viral relative abundances for alpha and beta diversity estimates. RESULTS: Tools specifically designed for metagenomes, specifically metaSPAdes, MEGAHIT, and IDBA-UD, were the most effective at assembling viromes. Read pre-processing, such as partitioning, had virtually no impact on assembly output, but may be useful when hardware is limited. Viral populations with 2-5 × coverage typically assembled well, whereas lesser coverage led to fragmented assembly. Strain heterogeneity within populations hampered assembly, especially when strains were closely related (average nucleotide identity, or ANI ≥97%) and when the most abundant strain represented <50% of the population. Viral community composition assessments based on read recruitment were generally accurate when the following thresholds for detection were applied: (i) ≥10 kb contig lengths to define populations, (ii) coverage defined from reads mapping at ≥90% identity, and (iii) ≥75% of contig length with ≥1 × coverage. Finally, although data are limited to the most abundant viruses in a community, alpha and beta diversity patterns were robustly estimated (±10%) when comparing samples of similar sequencing…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a simulation / modelling, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free