Schackart Kenneth E, Graham Jessica B, Ponsero Alise J, Hurwitz Bonnie L
Department of Biosystems Engineering, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
BIO5 Institute, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Front Microbiol. 2023 Jan 25;14:1078760. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1078760. eCollection 2023.
As new computational tools for detecting phage in metagenomes are being rapidly developed, a critical need has emerged to develop systematic benchmarks.
In this study, we surveyed 19 metagenomic phage detection tools, 9 of which could be installed and run at scale. Those 9 tools were assessed on several benchmark challenges. Fragmented reference genomes are used to assess the effects of fragment length, low viral content, phage taxonomy, robustness to eukaryotic contamination, and computational resource usage. Simulated metagenomes are used to assess the effects of sequencing and assembly quality on the tool performances. Finally, real human gut metagenomes and viromes are used to assess the differences and similarities in the phage communities predicted by the tools.
We find that the various tools yield strikingly different results. Generally, tools that use a homology approach (VirSorter, MARVEL, viralVerify, VIBRANT, and VirSorter2) demonstrate low false positive rates and robustness to eukaryotic contamination. Conversely, tools that use a sequence composition approach (VirFinder, DeepVirFinder, Seeker), and MetaPhinder, have higher sensitivity, including to phages with less representation in reference databases. These differences led to widely differing predicted phage communities in human gut metagenomes, with nearly 80% of contigs being marked as phage by at least one tool and a maximum overlap of 38.8% between any two tools. While the results were more consistent among the tools on viromes, the differences in results were still significant, with a maximum overlap of 60.65%. Discussion: Importantly, the benchmark datasets developed in this study are publicly available and reusable to enable the future comparability of new tools developed.
随着用于在宏基因组中检测噬菌体的新计算工具迅速发展,开发系统基准的迫切需求应运而生。
在本研究中,我们调查了19种宏基因组噬菌体检测工具,其中9种可以大规模安装和运行。这9种工具在几个基准挑战上进行了评估。使用片段化的参考基因组来评估片段长度、低病毒含量、噬菌体分类学、对真核生物污染的稳健性以及计算资源使用的影响。使用模拟宏基因组来评估测序和组装质量对工具性能的影响。最后,使用真实的人类肠道宏基因组和病毒组来评估这些工具预测的噬菌体群落的差异和相似性。
我们发现各种工具产生的结果截然不同。一般来说,使用同源性方法的工具(VirSorter、MARVEL、viralVerify、VIBRANT和VirSorter2)显示出低假阳性率和对真核生物污染的稳健性。相反,使用序列组成方法的工具(VirFinder、DeepVirFinder、Seeker)以及MetaPhinder具有更高的灵敏度,包括对参考数据库中代表性较少的噬菌体。这些差异导致在人类肠道宏基因组中预测的噬菌体群落差异很大,至少有一种工具将近80%的重叠群标记为噬菌体,任何两种工具之间的最大重叠率为38.8%。虽然在病毒组上工具之间的结果更一致,但结果差异仍然显著,最大重叠率为60.65%。讨论:重要的是,本研究中开发的基准数据集是公开可用且可重复使用的,以便能够对新开发的工具进行未来的比较。