Fig. 3: Comparison between ARG profiling methods. | Nature Communications

Fig. 3: Comparison between ARG profiling methods.

From: Species-resolved profiling of antibiotic resistance genes in complex metagenomes through long-read overlapping with Argo

Fig. 3

a Expected and estimated ARG abundances (cpg). F1-scores at the type level (typ.) and subtype level (sub.) are summarized in tables. ARGs with unclassified taxonomy were not used in F1-score calculations. Dashed gray lines indicate 1:1 ratio lines. b Pearson correlation coefficient measuring the linear relationship between estimated and expected ARG abundances. c, d L1 (c) or L2 (d) distances measuring the deviation between estimated and expected ARG abundances. a–d Colors represent samples: HQ (q = 19.04, l =  5028) and LQ (q = 13.19, l = 10,365). Shapes of points and line types denote ARG profiling methods: read-based (Argo), assembly-based (metaFlye + Kraken2), and binning-based (SemiBin2 + GTDB-Tk).

Back to article page