GradeBins: a comprehensive framework to augment metagenomic bin quality control
Bushnell, B.; Bowers, R. M.; Villada, J. C.
Show abstract
1.Metagenomic binning and single-cell assembly produce draft genomes whose completeness and contamination vary with experimental and computational choices. Comparing whole bin sets remains difficult because most quality assessment tools report per-bin metrics and operate either with ground truth labels or with inference estimates. GradeBins evaluates complete bin sets under two execution modes while producing matched per-bin and bin-set summaries. For real metagenomes, inference mode integrates bin statistics, mapping depth, taxonomy, and external quality estimates from tools such as CheckM2 and EukCC to standardize per-bin and bin-set quality reporting across Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryotes. For synthetic or otherwise labeled datasets, ground truth mode computes base-resolved completeness, contamination, and misbinning from labeled contigs or CAMI mappings, enabling objective benchmarking of binners, parameter choices, and experimental conditions, and calibration of inference-based estimates. Across synthetic metagenomes of 10, 50, 100, 500 and 1,000 Bacteria and Archaea, and a mixed metagenome containing also Eukaryotes, GradeBins separated binner and parameter effects using Total Score and a quality-weighted bin count, together with quality tier distributions, recovery fractions, and label-aware diagnostics. Inference-mode completeness generally tracked ground truth, whereas contamination and clean-bin rates showed mode-dependent shifts that were most pronounced in the mixed community. GradeBins added low overhead in these benchmarks, with peak memory below 8 GB and runtimes typically below 30 seconds. GradeBins enables reproducible protocol comparison, regression testing, and consistent quality reporting for genome-resolved metagenomics in both benchmarking and real-data settings. The full software package is open-source and available for download at https://bbmap.org/tools/gradebins.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.