A pile of pipelines: an overview of the bioinformatics software for metabarcoding data analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding has gained growing attention as a strategy for monitoring biodiversity in ecology. However, taxa identifications produced through metabarcoding require sophisticated processing of high-throughput sequencing data from taxonomically informative DNA barcodes. Various sets of universal and taxon-specific primers have been developed, extending the usability of metabarcoding across archaea, bacteria, and eukaryotes. Accordingly, a multitude of metabarcoding data analysis tools and pipelines have also been developed. Often, several developed workflows are designed to process the same amplicon sequencing data, making it somewhat puzzling to choose one amongst the plethora of existing pipelines. However, each pipeline has its own specific philosophy, strengths, and limitations, which should be considered depending on the aims of any specific study, as well as the bioinformatics expertise of the user. In this review, we outline the input data requirements, supported operating systems, and particular attributes of thirty-one amplicon processing pipelines with the goal of helping users to select a pipeline for their metabarcoding projects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.021 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".