Tutorial: assessing metagenomics software with the CAMI benchmarking toolkit

被引:0
|
作者
Fernando Meyer
Till-Robin Lesker
David Koslicki
Adrian Fritz
Alexey Gurevich
Aaron E. Darling
Alexander Sczyrba
Andreas Bremges
Alice C. McHardy
机构
[1] Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research,Computational Biology of Infection Research
[2] German Center for Infection Research (DZIF),Computer Science and Engineering, Biology, and The Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences
[3] Penn State University,Center for Algorithmic Biotechnology
[4] St. Petersburg State University,The ithree institute
[5] University of Technology Sydney,Faculty of Technology and Center for Biotechnology
[6] Bielefeld University,undefined
来源
Nature Protocols | 2021年 / 16卷
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Computational methods are key in microbiome research, and obtaining a quantitative and unbiased performance estimate is important for method developers and applied researchers. For meaningful comparisons between methods, to identify best practices and common use cases, and to reduce overhead in benchmarking, it is necessary to have standardized datasets, procedures and metrics for evaluation. In this tutorial, we describe emerging standards in computational meta-omics benchmarking derived and agreed upon by a larger community of researchers. Specifically, we outline recent efforts by the Critical Assessment of Metagenome Interpretation (CAMI) initiative, which supplies method developers and applied researchers with exhaustive quantitative data about software performance in realistic scenarios and organizes community-driven benchmarking challenges. We explain the most relevant evaluation metrics for assessing metagenome assembly, binning and profiling results, and provide step-by-step instructions on how to generate them. The instructions use simulated mouse gut metagenome data released in preparation for the second round of CAMI challenges and showcase the use of a repository of tool results for CAMI datasets. This tutorial will serve as a reference for the community and facilitate informative and reproducible benchmarking in microbiome research.
引用
收藏
页码:1785 / 1801
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] LEMMI: a continuous benchmarking platform for metagenomics classifiers
    Seppey, Mathieu
    Manni, Mose
    Zdobnov, Evgeny M.
    GENOME RESEARCH, 2020, 30 (08) : 1208 - 1216
  • [12] Benchmarking DNA isolation methods for marine metagenomics
    Demkina, Alina
    Slonova, Darya
    Mamontov, Viktor
    Konovalova, Olga
    Yurikova, Daria
    Rogozhin, Vladimir
    Belova, Vera
    Korostin, Dmitriy
    Sutormin, Dmitry
    Severinov, Konstantin
    Isaev, Artem
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2023, 13 (01):
  • [13] Benchmarking DNA isolation methods for marine metagenomics
    Alina Demkina
    Darya Slonova
    Viktor Mamontov
    Olga Konovalova
    Daria Yurikova
    Vladimir Rogozhin
    Vera Belova
    Dmitriy Korostin
    Dmitry Sutormin
    Konstantin Severinov
    Artem Isaev
    Scientific Reports, 13 (1)
  • [14] SOFTWARE BENCHMARKING
    JONES, C
    COMPUTER, 1995, 28 (10) : 102 - 103
  • [15] Tutorial Fostering Resilience in IT: A Resource Toolkit for Faculty
    Smith, Wanda J.
    Belanger, France
    Lewis, Tracy
    Honaker, Kristi
    SIGMIS CPR 2007: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2007 ACM SIGMIS CPR CONFERENCE GLOBAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY WORKFORCE, 2007, : 76 - +
  • [16] A Tutorial on Software Obfuscation
    Banescu, Sebastian
    Pretschner, Alexander
    ADVANCES IN COMPUTERS, VOL 108, 2018, 108 : 283 - 353
  • [17] TUTORIAL SOFTWARE IN STATICS
    STATHOPOULOS, T
    CHALLENGES OF A CHANGING WORLD, VOLS 1 AND 2, 1991, : 211 - 215
  • [18] Arena® software tutorial
    Takus, DA
    Profozich, DM
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1997 WINTER SIMULATION CONFERENCE, 1997, : 541 - 544
  • [19] Assessing the potentials of CASE-Tools in software process improvement: A Benchmarking study
    Daneva, M
    Terzieva, R
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ASSESSMENT OF SOFTWARE TOOLS, 1996, : 104 - 108
  • [20] Visualization toolkit software
    Wills, Graham
    WILEY INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEWS-COMPUTATIONAL STATISTICS, 2012, 4 (05) : 474 - 481