Navigating the Viral Genomics Landscape: A Comprehensive Comparison of Database Repositories for Research and Drug Development

Abstract

This article provides a systematic comparison of viral genomic database repositories, tailored for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals. It maps the current ecosystem of databases, from comprehensive resources like BV-BRC to specialized repositories, evaluating their content, functionality, and compliance with FAIR data principles. The review offers a practical framework for selecting appropriate databases based on research goals, addresses common challenges in data quality and tool selection, and presents independent benchmarking of bioinformatic virus identification tools. By synthesizing these facets, the article serves as a guide for optimizing the use of viral genomic data in pathogen surveillance, comparative genomics, and therapeutic development.

Mapping the Ecosystem: A Guide to Viral Genomic Database Types and Core Content

This guide provides an objective comparison of the landscape of viral genomic data resources, from broad, general-purpose repositories to specialized tools designed for specific analytical tasks. For researchers and drug development professionals, selecting the appropriate resource is a critical first step that can significantly impact the efficiency and accuracy of downstream viral genomic analysis.

The ecosystem of viral genomic resources can be broadly categorized into two tiers: Generalist Repositories that serve as primary data archives, and Specialized Analytical Resources that provide processed data, refined classifications, and tool-specific databases for advanced analysis.

Table 1: Categorization of Viral Genomic Resources

Category	Primary Function	Key Examples	Typical Use Case
Generalist Repositories	Primary sequence data archive and basic annotation	NCBI Databases (GenBank, RefSeq, Assembly, BioProject) [1]	Accessing raw or assembled genomic sequences and associated metadata.
Specialized Analytical Resources	Classification, phylogenetic analysis, and real-time tracking	ICTV (VMR-MSL), VITAP, Virgo, Nextstrain [2] [3] [4]	Performing taxonomic classification, evolutionary analysis, and genomic surveillance.

Comparative Performance of Specialized Tools

Specialized resources often integrate data from generalist repositories and apply custom algorithms to solve specific research problems. Their performance varies based on the task, such as taxonomic classification or identification within metagenomic data.

Taxonomic Classification Tools

Tools for assigning taxonomic labels to viral sequences are essential for characterizing unknown pathogens and understanding viral diversity. Benchmarking studies evaluate them based on accuracy, precision, recall, and annotation rate (the proportion of input sequences that receive a taxonomic assignment).

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Viral Taxonomic Classification Tools

Tool	Classification Basis	Reported Accuracy/Precision/Recall	Key Strength	Reference/Version
VITAP	Alignment + graph-based scoring	>0.9 (Average for family/genus) [2]	High annotation rate for short sequences (≥1 kb) across most DNA/RNA viral phyla [2]	Nature Communications (2025) [2]
Virgo	Bidirectional subsethood of marker profiles	F1-score >0.9 at family level [3]	High accuracy for fragmented genomes; designed for easy updates with new ICTV releases [3]	Microbiome (2025) [3]
vConTACT2	Gene-sharing network	>0.9 (Average F1-score) [2]	High F1-score, but suffers from lower annotation rates compared to VITAP [2]	Benchmarked in VITAP study [2]

Virus Identification in Metagenomic Data

Distinguishing viral sequences from microbial host DNA in mixed metagenomic samples is a distinct challenge. Performance is measured by the ability to correctly identify viral sequences (True Positive Rate) while minimizing false assignments (False Positive Rate).

Table 3: Performance of Virus Identification Tools on Real-World Metagenomic Data

Tool	Algorithm Type	True Positive Rate (Range)	False Positive Rate (Range)	Notes
PPR-Meta	Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)	Among the highest	Among the lowest	Best overall at distinguishing viral from microbial contigs [5]
DeepVirFinder	Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)	High	Low	Top performer following PPR-Meta [5]
VirSorter2	Tree-based machine learning	High	Low	Integrates multiple biological signals; a robust choice [5]
VIBRANT	Hybrid (Neural Network + HMMs)	High	Low	Uses viral nucleotide domain abundances [5]
Other Tools	Various (LSTM, k-mer frequency, etc.)	0% - 97%	0% - 30%	Performance is highly variable and tool-dependent [5]

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Understanding the experimental and computational methodologies behind benchmarking studies is crucial for interpreting the data and applying these tools in your own research.

Protocol for Benchmarking Taxonomic Classifiers

A standard methodology for evaluating classifiers like VITAP and Virgo involves using a gold-standard reference dataset and cross-validation [2] [6].

• Dataset Curation: A set of viral genomes with validated taxonomic labels is compiled from a trusted source like the ICTV's Virus Metadata Resource (VMR). The dataset should represent diverse viral realms.
• Sequence Preparation: To test robustness, full genomes can be in silico fragmented into sequences of varying lengths (e.g., 1 kbp, 5 kbp, 30 kbp).
• Cross-Validation: The dataset is split into training and testing sets. Each tool classifies the sequences in the testing set.
• Performance Calculation: The tool's classifications are compared against the known labels to calculate accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and annotation rate.

Figure 1: Workflow for benchmarking viral taxonomic classifiers, highlighting key steps from data curation to performance evaluation.

Protocol for Benchmarking Virus Identification Tools

Benchmarking tools that find viruses in metagenomes requires a different approach, using paired metagenomic samples from the same environment to establish a "ground truth" [5].

• Sample Collection and Fractionation: Environmental samples (e.g., seawater, soil) are processed through physical size fractionation.
  • Viral Fraction (<0.22 μm): Enriched for virus-like particles. Contigs from this fraction are treated as positive controls.
  • Microbial Fraction (>0.22 μm): Enriched for cellular organisms. Contigs from this fraction are treated as negative controls.
• Metagenomic Sequencing and Assembly: DNA from both fractions is sequenced separately, and reads are assembled into contigs.
• Quality Control: The viral fraction is checked for enrichment using tools like ViromeQC. Contigs found in both fractions are removed to avoid ambiguity.
• Tool Execution and Validation: Multiple virus identification tools are run on the pooled contigs. Their predictions are compared against the ground truth to calculate True Positive Rates (sensitivity) and False Positive Rates (1 - specificity).

Successful viral genomics research relies on a combination of data resources, software tools, and reference standards.

Table 4: Key Reagents and Resources for Viral Genomics Research

Resource Solution	Function	Example Use Case
Internal Control Viruses	Acts as a spike-in control for sequencing workflow.	Phocine Herpesvirus (PhHV-1) and Equine Arteritis Virus (EAV) used to monitor extraction and sequencing efficiency in clinical metagenomics [6].
Reference Genome Databases	Provides a set of known sequences for comparison and classification.	GenBank/RefSeq (general) [1]; ICTV's VMR-MSL (curated taxonomy) [3]; geNomad markers (virus-specific genes) [3].
Complex Mock Communities	A synthetic sample with known composition to benchmark tool performance.	HC227 mock community (227 bacterial strains) used to test 16S rRNA amplicon analysis pipelines [7]; Mock phage communities used for virus identification tool testing [5].
Specialized Bioinformatics Pipelines	Software that automates specific analysis workflows.	Nextstrain (real-time phylogenetic tracking) [4]; ViWrap (comprehensive viral identification and analysis) [8].
Quality Control Tools	Assesses the quality and purity of metagenomic datasets.	ViromeQC evaluates the level of microbial contamination in viromic samples prior to analysis [5].

Database / Resource Name	Core Content Type	Reported Sequence Volume	Reported Species/Cluster Volume	Key Metadata & Features
International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) Master Species List (VMR) [9]	Authoritative, curated virus genomes	16,222 genomes (MSL39, 2025)	18,202 species (MSL39, 2025) [9]	Official 15-rank taxonomic hierarchy; integrates sequence data from GenBank [2] [9].
IMG/VR Database [10] [11]	Metagenomic viral contigs	15,677,623 contigs [10]	7,721,789 viral Operational Taxonomic Units (vOTUs) from available samples [11]	Extensive functional, taxonomic, and ecological metadata; largest virus sequence database [11].
EnVhogDB [12]	Viral protein families (HMM profiles)	Clustered from >46 million deduplicated proteins [12]	2,203,457 protein families (enVhogs) [12]	HMM profiles for sensitive homology detection; 15.9% of families annotated [12].
Estimated Total Viral Space [11]	Projected global diversity	Not Specified	~823 million vOTUs; ~1.62 billion viral protein clusters [11]	Projection based on metagenomic discovery trends; suggests >97% of diversity is unexplored [11].

The rapid expansion of metagenomic sequencing has fundamentally transformed virology, generating an unprecedented volume of data that challenges traditional classification and analysis methods [13]. The core challenge has shifted from data generation to data organization, interpretation, and integration. This landscape is populated by databases with distinct, complementary purposes: authoritative repositories like the ICTV's Master Species List provide curated, taxonomy-backed genomes essential for classification benchmarks [2] [9]; metagenomic aggregators like IMG/VR catalog the vast, unstructured diversity of viral sequences from environmental samples [10] [11]; and functional databases like EnVhogDB organize viral protein space into families to enable functional annotation and homology detection [12]. Understanding the scale, content, and specific use cases of these resources is a prerequisite for effective research in viral genomics, drug discovery, and ecology. This guide provides an objective comparison of these key repositories, focusing on their core content volume, supported experimental protocols, and role in the broader research ecosystem.

Comparative Analysis of Database Content and Scale

The quantitative disparity between curated and metagenomic databases highlights the explosive growth of sequence data and the ongoing challenge of taxonomic classification.

• Curated Taxonomy vs. Metagenomic Reality: The ICTV database, while being the gold standard for official taxonomy, is several orders of magnitude smaller than metagenomic repositories like IMG/VR in terms of sequence count. The ICTV contained 16,222 genomes in its 2025 release (MSL39), a number that has more than doubled in the last five years [9]. In stark contrast, the IMG/VR database houses over 15.6 million viral contigs [10]. This gap underscores the immense volume of uncultivated and unclassified viral sequences that researchers routinely encounter.

• The Protein-Centric View: The EnVhogDB database demonstrates the scale and complexity of the viral protein universe. It clusters over 46 million proteins into 2.2 million protein families (enVhogs), of which only about 16% could be functionally annotated [12]. This highlights the vast amount of "functional dark matter" in viral genomes and the need for sensitive, homology-based tools to annotate novel sequences.

• The Unexplored Virosphere: Research predicts that the total global viral diversity is vast, with estimates of approximately 823 million viral operational taxonomic units (vOTUs) and 1.62 billion viral protein clusters [11]. Remarkably, current databases have captured less than 3% of this predicted diversity [11]. The IMG/VR database, for instance, has identified 7.7 million vOTUs from its samples, a figure that aligns with the power function model used to predict total diversity, indicating that saturation of the viral genetic space is far from being achieved [11].

Experimental Protocols for Database Curation and Benchmarking

The construction and validation of genomic databases rely on rigorous, reproducible computational protocols. The methodologies below are derived from recent high-impact studies.

Protocol 1: Clustering Viral Genomes into Species-Level Units

This protocol is based on the Vclust tool, designed for ultrafast and accurate clustering of millions of viral genomes into vOTUs using authoritative thresholds [10].

• Sequence Identity Estimation (Prefiltering): Use Kmer-db 2 to perform an initial k-mer-based estimation of sequence identity for all genome pairs. This step efficiently filters out unrelated sequences, significantly reducing the computational load for downstream alignment. The tool can use either all k-mers or a predefined fraction to balance speed and sensitivity [10].
• Alignment and ANI Calculation: For sequence pairs exceeding a relatedness threshold, perform precise alignment using LZ-ANI. This algorithm uses Lempel-Ziv parsing to identify local alignments and calculates the overall Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) and Aligned Fraction (AF) from these regions with high sensitivity [10].
• Clustering: Input the resulting ANI/AF values into Clusty, which implements six clustering algorithms suited for sparse distance matrices. Clustering thresholds (e.g., ≥95% ANI for species, ≥70% for genus) are applied as endorsed by the ICTV and MIUViG standards to generate the final vOTUs [10].

Protocol 2: Classifying Viral Sequences with an Evolving Taxonomy

This protocol, based on the Virgo classifier, ensures compatibility with the frequently updated ICTV taxonomy [9].

• Database Synchronization: Use ICTVdump to download all nucleotide sequences and their full taxonomic lineages from a specific ICTV Master Species List release. This ensures the reference database is synchronized with the desired taxonomy version [9].
• Marker Profile Generation: For every reference and query sequence, predict viral Open Reading Frames (vORFs). Align these vORFs against a database of virus-specific marker profiles (e.g., the 161,862 markers from geNomad) to create an unordered collection of matched marker profiles for each genome [9].
• Taxonomic Assignment: For a query sequence, calculate a bidirectional subsethood score against every reference virus in the database. This metric assesses the similarity between the marker profiles of the query and the reference. Assign the query the taxonomic lineage of the reference virus with the highest similarity score [9].

Benchmarking Methodology for Classification Tools

A robust benchmark for viral classification tools should use a standardized dataset and multiple performance metrics, as seen in assessments of VITAP and Virgo [2] [9].

• Dataset Curation: Use a dataset of sequences with known, validated taxonomic labels. This can include reference genomes from the ICTV VMR or high-quality metagenomic assemblies like the known Viral Sequence Clusters (kVSCs) from human gut metaviromes [9].
• Performance Metrics: Evaluate tools based on:
  • Accuracy/Precision/Recall (F1 Score): Measures the correctness of taxonomic predictions at specific ranks (e.g., family, genus) [2] [9].
  • Annotation Rate: The proportion of input sequences that receive a taxonomic assignment, which highlights a tool's coverage [2].
  • Computational Efficiency: Runtime and memory usage, crucial for large-scale metagenomic studies [10].
• Version Control: Ensure all tools are benchmarked against the same version of the reference taxonomy to ensure a fair comparison, as labels can change between ICTV releases [9].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

The following tools and databases are critical for conducting viral genomics research, from initial sequencing to final classification.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions in Viral Metagenomics

Tool / Resource Name	Type	Primary Function	Relevance to Database Research
Vclust [10]	Computational Workflow	Ultrafast alignment & clustering of viral genomes.	Core tool for generating species-level clusters (vOTUs) from millions of sequences for database entry.
VITAP [2]	Classification Pipeline	High-precision taxonomic assignment of DNA/RNA viruses.	Used for assigning standardized, confidence-scored taxonomy to sequences within a database.
Virgo [9]	Classifier	Virus family prediction using marker profiles.	Enables taxonomy-aware classification that stays synchronized with the latest ICTV releases.
VirSorter2 [14]	Detection Tool	Identification of viral sequences from metagenomes.	Critical first-step "reagent" for mining new viral contigs from bulk metagenomic data for database inclusion.
EnVhogDB HMM Profiles [12]	Protein Family Database	Collection of HMMs for sensitive viral protein annotation.	Used to functionally characterize proteins in novel viral sequences, adding functional metadata to genomic entries.
ICTVdump [9]	Data Utility	Automated retrieval of sequences/taxonomy from any ICTV release.	Essential for maintaining and benchmarking databases against the authoritative, evolving taxonomy.
metaFlye / MEGAHIT [14]	Assembler	Assembly of viral genomes from long-read or short-read data.	Foundational tools for reconstructing viral genomes from raw sequencing reads before database submission.

The current landscape of viral genomic databases is defined by a dynamic tension between the rigorously curated but limited ICTV taxonomy and the massive, exploratory frontier of metagenomic repositories like IMG/VR. The scale of undiscovered diversity remains vast, with estimates suggesting that over 97% of viral species and protein families are yet to be cataloged [11]. For researchers, the choice of database is dictated by the specific research question: ICT VMR for authoritative classification and benchmarking, IMG/VR for accessing the broadest spectrum of uncultivated viral sequences, and EnVhogDB for deep functional annotation of viral proteins. The development of powerful, scalable tools like Vclust for clustering [10] and VITAP [2] and Virgo [9] for classification is crucial for bridging the gap between raw sequence data and biologically meaningful taxonomy. As sequencing technologies continue to advance, the integration of these resources and methodologies will be paramount in illuminating the dark matter of the virosphere and translating genetic data into ecological insights and therapeutic applications.

For researchers in viral genomics and drug development, selecting the right database is a critical strategic decision. The landscape in 2025 is characterized by highly specialized resources tailored to specific biological questions and data types. This guide provides a structured comparison of database specializations, focusing on their unique capabilities for pathogen research, ecosystem-level analysis, and integrated tooling, to inform your selection for genomic repository projects.

Database Specialization Categories at a Glance

The table below summarizes the core specializations of modern biological databases, highlighting their primary applications in research.

Table 1: Core Specializations of Biological Databases

Specialization Category	Defining Function	Exemplary Databases	Primary Research Application
Pathogen-Focused	Manually curated data on genes affecting pathogenicity, virulence, and host interactions [15].	PHI-base, VFDB, BFVD, Enterobase [16] [15]	Experimental analysis of infection mechanisms, host-pathogen interactions, and antimicrobial resistance.
Ecosystem & Phenomic	Standardized, large-scale field measurements of fundamental ecosystem functions [17] [18].	Global Terrestrial NPP Database [18]	Calibrating and validating climate, carbon cycle, and vegetation models.
Tool-Integrated / Multi-Omics	Providing data within an ecosystem of integrated analysis tools and visualization platforms [16] [19].	EXPRESSO, CELLxGENE, UCSC Genome Browser, Ensembl [16]	Multi-omics studies, enabling unified analysis of genomic, epigenomic, and transcriptomic data.

Comparative Analysis of Specialized Databases

This section provides a detailed, data-driven comparison of specific databases across the three specializations, focusing on their content, scope, and application.

Pathogen-Focused Database Deep Dive: PHI-base

PHI-base is a cornerstone resource for molecular data on pathogen-host interactions (PHIs). The following table summarizes its key quantitative metrics and application context, with data from its 2024 version 4.17 release [15].

Table 2: PHI-base (v4.17) Content and Application Profile

Metric	Value	Context & Application
Total Curated Genes	9,973	Genes with experimentally verified roles in pathogenicity from nearly 3,000 pathogens, protists, and insects [15].
Total Interactions (PHIs)	22,415	Each interaction defines the observable function of a single gene/protein on one host tissue type [15].
Pathogen Coverage	295 species	Includes 148 bacterial, 120 fungal, and 19 protist pathogens, supporting cross-species comparative studies [15].
Key Phenotypic Outcomes	9 high-level terms (e.g., "reduced virulence," "effector," "lethal") [15]	A standardized vocabulary that enables consistent comparison of molecular phenotypes across diverse pathosystems [15].
Primary Research Use	Functional gene characterization, 'omics study validation, predictive modeling of pathogenicity [15].	Serves as a benchmark for interpreting genes identified in genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic experiments.

Ecosystem-Specific Database Deep Dive: A Global NPP Database

This database addresses a critical gap by providing harmonized, global field measurements of Net Primary Production (NPP)—the carbon accumulated by plants annually—across major terrestrial biomes [18].

Table 3: Global Terrestrial NPP Database Profile

Metric	Value	Context & Application
Spatial Scope	456 sites across 50 countries [18]	Ensures global representativeness and coverage of major climate regions.
Biome Coverage	6 major types: Forests (206 sites), Grasslands (145), Croplands (34), Peatlands (34), Tundra (21), Dry Shrublands (16) [18]	Enables comparative studies of productivity across different ecosystem structures.
Data Emphasis	Includes both aboveground and belowground production estimates [18]	Critical for accurate carbon budgeting, as belowground production accounts for >30% of global NPP.
Methodological Rigor	~95% of estimates from direct biometric methods; includes site-specific uncertainty metrics [18]	Provides a high-quality benchmark for validating remote-sensing products and process-based vegetation models (DGVMs).
Primary Research Use	Studying environmental drivers of NPP, calibrating climate models, analyzing biomass production patterns [18].	Essential for projecting ecosystem responses to climate change and informing global carbon cycle models.

The 2025 Nucleic Acids Research database issue highlights a trend towards databases that are deeply integrated with analysis tools [16]. A prime example is EXPRESSO, noted as a "Breakthrough Resource" for its unified handling of multi-omics data to link the 3D genome, the epigenome, and gene expression [16]. Such platforms provide a critical service by moving beyond simple data storage to offer "one-stop analysis tools" [19], which can include sequence typing, visualization, and secure computing environments for sensitive data like pathogenic genomes [19]. This integration significantly accelerates the research workflow by eliminating the need to transfer data between disparate systems.

Experimental Protocols for Database Utilization

The value of these specialized databases is realized through their application in specific research workflows. The following diagrams and protocols outline common experimental pathways.

Workflow 1: Characterizing a Pathogen Gene of Unknown Function

This protocol leverages PHI-base to hypothesize the function of a novel pathogen gene identified from genomic sequencing.

Diagram 1: Pathogen Gene Characterization Workflow

Experimental Protocol

• Step 1: Sequence Homology Search. Use the PHIB-BLAST tool (phi-blast.phi-base.org) to query your nucleotide or protein sequence against the curated genes in PHI-base [15].
• Step 2: Phenotype Analysis. For significant matches (E-value < 1e-5), extract the associated high-level phenotypic outcome terms (e.g., "loss of pathogenicity," "effector") from the PHI-base entry [15].
• Step 3: Orthologous Analysis. Use the database to identify if the gene or its orthologs have been characterized in other pathogen species, noting any conserved functional domains or motifs.
• Step 4: Hypothesis Generation. Synthesize the data to hypothesize that your novel gene may function as a virulence factor, an avirulence effector, or be essential for pathogenicity.
• Step 5: Experimental Design. Design a gene-knockout experiment. The hypothesis predicts the observable phenotype in a host infection model (e.g., a knockout strain would show "reduced virulence").

Workflow 2: Benchmarking a Vegetation Model with Ecosystem Data

This protocol uses the global NPP database to calibrate and validate a Dynamic Global Vegetation Model (DGVM).

Diagram 2: Vegetation Model Benchmarking Workflow

Experimental Protocol

• Step 1: Data Subsetting. Filter the global NPP database to extract site-level NPP measurements that match the biomes and climatic regions your DGVM is designed to simulate [18].
• Step 2: Uncertainty Incorporation. Account for the method-specific uncertainty estimates provided for each NPP entry in the database. This step is crucial, as ignoring data quality variations can lead to significantly biased regression models [18].
• Step 3: Regression Analysis. Run a regression of the modeled NPP values against the harmonized field measurements from the database. Calculate key statistics like R², root-mean-square error (RMSE), and bias.
• Step 4: Model Calibration. Adjust key model parameters (e.g., carbon allocation coefficients, respiration rates) within plausible ranges to minimize the deviation (bias and RMSE) between the model output and the observed data.
• Step 5: Independent Validation. Use a held-out portion of the NPP database (e.g., data from a different time period or geographic region) to validate the calibrated model's performance, ensuring it has not been over-fitted.

Successful experimentation in this field relies on both data and specific analytical reagents. The following table lists key resources referenced in this guide.

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Database-Driven Research

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in Research
PHIB-BLAST	Computational Tool	Allows researchers to perform BLAST queries against the manually curated genes in PHI-base to find homologs of unknown sequences [15].
Method-Specific Uncertainty Estimate	Data Quality Metric	A framework provided with the Global NPP Database that quantifies the reliability of each NPP entry, enabling more robust statistical model fitting [18].
High-Level Phenotype Terms	Controlled Vocabulary	A set of nine standardized terms (e.g., "reduced virulence") in PHI-base that enable consistent cross-species comparison of gene functions [15].
FAIR Data Principles	Data Management Framework	A set of principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) adhered to by databases like PHI-base to ensure data is maximally usable for the scientific community [15].

The rapid expansion of viral sequence data has necessitated the development of robust international frameworks for organizing and interpreting this information. Two complementary systems form the backbone of this effort: the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV), which establishes the official classification and nomenclature of viruses, and the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration (INSDC), which provides the foundational infrastructure for storing and accessing sequence data. While ICTV creates the taxonomic "map" that guides our understanding of viral evolutionary relationships, the INSDC ensures that the underlying data remains accessible, standardized, and interoperable. This comparison guide examines the distinct roles, standards, and collaborative interactions between these two pillars of viral bioinformatics, providing researchers with a comprehensive understanding of how international curation shapes viral genomic research.

Organizational Structures and Governance Models

ICTV: A Taxonomy-Focused Hierarchy

The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses operates as the official body for developing and maintaining a standardized viral taxonomy. Its classification system follows a hierarchical structure that ranges from highest to lowest ranks: realm, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, subfamily, genus, and species [20]. This structure groups viruses based on evolutionary relationships, with current taxonomy recognizing multiple realms indicating independent evolutionary origins of different virus groups [21]. The ICTV governance involves subcommittees focused on specific virus types (e.g., plant viruses, bacterial viruses) that propose new taxa, which are then ratified through a formal voting process [22] [23].

A key development in ICTV taxonomy has been the recent shift toward a binomial nomenclature for virus species, making viral classification more consistent with the naming systems used for cellular organisms [22]. The classification process has evolved from early phenotype-based systems to increasingly complex phylogenetic approaches that better reflect evolutionary history [20]. The ICTV maintains a Virus Metadata Resource (VMR) that provides a comprehensive list of virus species and representative isolates, along with their GenBank accession numbers and host associations, serving as a critical reference for the research community [21].

INSDC: A Distributed Data Partnership

The International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration represents a different organizational model—a strategic partnership between three major data repositories: the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) in the United States, the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory's European Bioinformatics Institute, and the DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ) [24]. These organizations collaboratively maintain synchronized databases through a division of data collection responsibilities based on geographical origin, with shared standards that ensure data consistency and interoperability across platforms.

Unlike the ICTV's taxonomy-focused mission, the INSDC's primary function is to provide comprehensive data infrastructure for nucleotide sequencing data. This distributed model is characterized by a commitment to open data sharing, with minimal governance restrictions compared to alternative platforms like GISAID [24]. However, this openness comes with challenges, including limited quality control mechanisms for metadata and potential issues with data traceability due to features that permit anonymous downloads [24].

Table 1: Key Characteristics of ICTV and INSDC Frameworks

Feature	ICTV	INSDC
Primary Mission	Establish viral taxonomy and nomenclature	Store, standardize, and provide access to sequence data
Governance Model	Specialist subcommittees with ratification process	Distributed partnership between NCBI, ENA, and DDBJ
Key Deliverables	Taxonomic proposals, ratified taxa lists, Virus Metadata Resource	Sequence records, annotated genomes, associated metadata
Nomenclature Role	Official species and higher-level taxa names	Accession numbers and database-specific identifiers
Data Standards	Classification criteria based on evolutionary relationships	Common data formats, exchange protocols, quality controls

Comparative Analysis of Database Standards and Methodologies

Taxonomy Development Versus Sequence Archiving

The methodological approaches of ICTV and INSDC reflect their distinct roles in the viral genomics ecosystem. ICTV's processes center on taxonomic proposal development, evaluation, and ratification. Recent taxonomy proposals have demonstrated this process in action, such as the reorganization of the genus Cytorhabdovirus into three new genera (Alphacytorhabdovirus, Betacytorhabdovirus, and Gammacytorhabdovirus) and the creation of new orders like Tombendovirales [22]. These taxonomic decisions are based on increasingly sophisticated phylogenetic analyses and genomic comparison methodologies that leverage the sequence data provided by INSDC.

In contrast, INSDC's methodologies focus on data processing pipelines that handle sequence submission, annotation, validation, and integration. The collaboration has developed standardized tools and formats for data exchange, including common sequence file formats, quality control checks, and metadata requirements. The INSDC's role as a foundational data resource enables the development of specialized tools like Nextstrain, which provides real-time tracking of viral variants during outbreaks—a capability that depends on uninterrupted access to comprehensive sequence data [24].

Data Integration Workflows

The functional relationship between ICTV and INSDC represents a critical dependency for viral bioinformatics. The workflow begins with researchers depositing raw sequence data in INSDC databases, which generate accession numbers and make sequences available for analysis. These sequences then form the basis for taxonomic studies that may lead to proposals for new viral taxa through ICTV's structured process. Once ratified, these taxonomic assignments are reflected in database annotations and utilized by downstream applications.

The following diagram illustrates this integrated workflow:

Figure 1: Integrated workflow between INSDC and ICTV in viral genomics.

Performance Metrics and Outcomes

Recent taxonomic updates demonstrate the scale and impact of ICTV's curation efforts. In 2025 alone, the Plant Viruses Subcommittee ratified 1 new order, 3 new families, 6 new genera, 2 new subgenera, and 206 new species [22]. Similarly, the Bacterial Viruses Subcommittee created 1 new phylum, 1 class, 4 orders, 33 families, 14 subfamilies, 194 genera, and 995 species [23]. This expansive growth reflects both the rapid discovery of novel viruses and ICTV's systematic approach to taxonomy development.

The INSDC's performance can be measured by its comprehensive data coverage and utility as a resource for downstream applications. The collaboration's value is particularly evident during public health emergencies, when tools like Nextstrain rely on INSDC data for real-time variant tracking [24]. However, recent controversies with alternative platforms like GISAID, which unexpectedly restricted data access to bioinformatic services, highlight the critical importance of maintaining unrestricted access to sequence databases during outbreaks [24].

Table 2: Recent Output Metrics for ICTV and INSDC (2025 Ratification Cycle)

Taxonomic Level	Plant Viruses [22]	Bacterial Viruses [23]
Phylum	-	1
Class	-	1
Order	1	4
Family	3	33
Subfamily	-	14
Genus	6	194
Species	206	995

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Taxonomy Proposal and Ratification Protocol

The ICTV taxonomy development process follows a structured methodology that ensures scientific rigor and community consensus. The experimental protocol for taxonomic changes involves multiple stages:

• Data Collection: Researchers assemble comprehensive sequence datasets from INSDC databases, often supplemented with biological characteristics (host range, virion morphology, pathogenicity) when available.

• Phylogenetic Analysis: Using tools such as RAxML-NG or BEAST2, researchers perform maximum likelihood or Bayesian phylogenetic inference to determine evolutionary relationships [25]. For example, a recent study of class-I fusion glycoproteins used structural phylogenetics to reveal the potential origin of coronavirus spike glycoprotein from an ancient genetic exchange with aquatic herpesviruses [21].

• Demarcation Criteria Application: Proposed taxa must satisfy established demarcation criteria, which may include genetic distance thresholds, gene content analyses, and shared structural features. Recent updates have included refining demarcation criteria for genera like Ilarvirus in the absence of comprehensive biological information [22].

• TaxoProp Submission: Researchers submit formal taxonomy proposals (TaxoProps) to the appropriate ICTV subcommittee, presenting evidence supporting the proposed classification.

• Review and Ratification: Subcommittee experts evaluate proposals before forwarding recommended changes to the full ICTV membership for ratification vote [22] [23].

Sequence Data Submission and Processing Protocol

The INSDC data handling methodology encompasses standardized procedures for data submission, validation, and integration:

• Sequence Submission: Researchers use platform-specific submission portals (NCBI's BankIt, ENA's Webin, or DDBJ's Sakura) to upload sequence data accompanied by mandatory metadata including source organism, collection data, and sequencing methodology.

• Data Validation: Automated checks verify sequence quality, format compliance, and metadata completeness. Tools like fastp and Trimmomatic may be used for pre-submission quality control [25].

• Accession Assignment: The database issues unique accession numbers that provide permanent identifiers for tracking and citation.

• Data Integration: Sequences become searchable through BLAST and other tools, with daily data exchange between INSDC partners ensuring synchronization across the three databases [24].

• Annotation: Submitters or automated pipelines add functional annotations, including coding sequences, gene predictions, and eventually ICTV-approved taxonomic classifications.

Research Reagent Solutions for Viral Genomics

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools in Viral Bioinformatics

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application Example
AlphaFold2-ColabFold [26] [21]	Structure Prediction	Predicts 3D protein structures from amino acid sequences	Mapping form and function across virosphere; >85,000 viral protein structures predicted
Rfam [27]	Database	Curated non-coding RNA families	Annotation of structured RNA elements in viral genomes
Viro3D [21]	Specialized Database	Viral protein structure repository	Structure-informed vaccine design and evolutionary studies
SPAdes [25]	Assembly Algorithm	Genome assembly from sequencing reads	Reconstructing viral genomes from metagenomic data
Trimmomatic/fastp [25]	Quality Control	Preprocessing of raw sequencing reads	Quality control prior to sequence submission
BBMap [25]	Alignment Tool	Splice-aware read alignment	Mapping reads to reference viral genomes
RAxML-NG [25]	Phylogenetic Software	Maximum likelihood phylogenetic inference	Determining evolutionary relationships for taxonomy
BEAST 2 [25]	Evolutionary Analysis	Bayesian evolutionary analysis	Molecular dating of viral divergence events

Discussion: Complementary Roles in Pandemic Preparedness

The 2019-2025 COVID-19 pandemic highlighted both the strengths and limitations of current international curation systems. The INSDC infrastructure demonstrated its critical role in enabling rapid global data sharing, with SARS-CoV-2 sequences becoming available within days of initial discovery [24]. However, controversies surrounding alternative databases like GISAID revealed vulnerabilities in the system, particularly when access restrictions limited the functionality of essential bioinformatic tools during a public health emergency [24].

The ongoing development of the WHO Pathogen Access Benefit Sharing (PABS) system underscores the political dimensions of viral sequence data management. Current negotiations assume uninterrupted access to viral sequence databases, yet the GISAID incident demonstrates that this cannot be taken for granted [24]. This has led to calls for WHO-supervised sequence-sharing platforms that would operate alongside or as alternatives to existing databases, potentially creating a more resilient multilateral system for pandemic preparedness [24].

Emerging technologies are reshaping the landscape of viral genomics and taxonomy. The Viro3D database exemplifies how AI-based structure prediction can expand our understanding of viral relationships beyond sequence-based methods alone [26] [21]. By providing structural predictions for over 85,000 viral proteins—expanding coverage 30-fold compared to experimental structures—resources like Viro3D enable new approaches to viral classification and functional annotation that complement traditional ICTV taxonomy [21].

Similarly, data mining techniques that harness "off-target" reads from public sequencing repositories are expanding known viral diversity without requiring new sample collection [25]. These approaches leverage the INSDC's comprehensive data storage to discover novel pathogens and elucidate ecological interactions, demonstrating how the infrastructure supports innovative research methodologies.

The complementary roles of ICTV classification and INSDC standards create a robust framework for organizing our understanding of the viral world. While ICTV provides the taxonomic structure that guides evolutionary interpretation, INSDC offers the data infrastructure that makes genomic research possible. Their continued coordination remains essential for supporting both basic virology and applied public health responses.

As viral genomics continues to evolve, several developments will shape the future of these international curation systems: the growing integration of structural data into classification criteria; the challenge of maintaining open access while ensuring equity through mechanisms like the PABS system; and the need for sustainable models that can scale with the exponentially increasing volume of sequence data. By addressing these challenges through continued international collaboration, the viral genomics community can build upon the strong foundations established by ICTV and INSDC to create a more comprehensive and responsive system for understanding and addressing viral threats.

Viral genomic database repositories have become indispensable tools for modern virology, epidemiology, and drug development research. These resources provide critical infrastructure for organizing, annotating, and analyzing the explosive growth of viral sequence data, enabling researchers to track outbreaks, understand pathogen evolution, and develop countermeasures. The landscape of viral databases has evolved significantly, with several major platforms now offering specialized capabilities for different research needs. This guide provides a systematic comparison of four major repositories—BV-BRC, IMG/VR, NCBI Virus, and VIRSI—focusing on their data scope, analytical capabilities, and suitability for various research applications. For researchers navigating this complex ecosystem, understanding the distinctive features and strengths of each platform is essential for selecting the right tool for their specific scientific questions.

The major viral genomic repositories vary significantly in their data scope, curation approaches, and primary research applications. The table below provides a quantitative comparison of their core characteristics.

Table 1: Core Characteristics of Major Viral Genomic Repositories

Repository	Primary Focus	Data Sources	Key Features	Unique Strengths
BV-BRC	Bacterial & viral pathogens	GenBank, SRA, manually curated datasets [28]	Unified bacterial & viral data model; RASTtk & VIGOR4 annotation [28]	Integrated host-pathogen data; machine learning-ready datasets [28]
NCBI Virus	Comprehensive viral sequence data	GenBank, RefSeq, INSDC databases [29]	Value-added curation; standardized metadata; outbreak statistics [29]	Taxonomy validation aligned with ICTV; segmented virus genome grouping [29] [30]
IMG/VR	Viral ecological genomics	Metagenomic assemblies, isolate genomes	Environmental focus; protein cluster database	Ecosystem context; uncultivated viral diversity
VIRSI	Pathogen surveillance	Not specified in available sources	Secure visualization; one-stop analysis tools [19]	Biosafety focus; sequence typing; horizontal transfer analysis [19]

Data Volume and Composition

The scale of genomic data varies across platforms, reflecting their different taxonomic focuses and data acquisition strategies.

Table 2: Genomic Data Volume and Composition Across Repositories

Repository	Viral Genomes	Bacterial Genomes	Other Data	Update Frequency
BV-BRC	~8.5 million (incl. 6M SARS-CoV-2) [28]	~600,000 [28]	Archaeal genomes, phage genomes, host genomes [28]	Daily [28]
NCBI Virus	Comprehensive collection from INSDC [29]	Not applicable	Protein sequences, sequence reads, metadata [29]	Regular (taxonomy updates in 2025) [30]
IMG/VR	Millions of viral contigs from metagenomes	Not applicable	Gene clusters, host predictions	Periodic
VIRSI	Pathogen-focused subset	Not applicable	Analysis results, typing data [19]	Not specified

Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

Data Processing and Annotation Workflows

Each repository employs distinct computational workflows for data processing, annotation, and quality control. These methodologies directly impact data consistency and reliability for downstream analyses.

Table 3: Core Data Processing Methodologies Across Repositories

Repository	Genome Annotation	Metadata Processing	Quality Control	Taxonomic Validation
BV-BRC	RASTtk for bacteria/archaea; VIGOR4 for viruses [28]	Automated scripts + manual curation; rule-based parsers [28]	Reference-based annotation consistency [28]	NCBI Taxonomy with manual curation [28]
NCBI Virus	RefSeq reference-based annotation [29]	Parsing of INSDC submissions; standardization [29]	Segmented virus grouping validation [29]	ICTV-aligned with binomial species names [29] [30]
IMG/VR	Prokaryotic virus-specific gene calling	Environmental metadata standardization	Contig quality assessment	Taxonomic classification from sequence similarity
VIRSI	Not specified	Not specified	Secure computing environment [19]	Not specified

Data Analysis Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the generalized workflow for genomic data processing shared across major repositories, from raw data ingestion to searchable database:

Search and Retrieval Methodologies

Search capabilities represent a critical differentiator among viral databases. NCBI Virus provides multiple access pathways including search by virus name/taxonomy, pre-configured datasets, and sequence-based search [29]. The platform's segmented virus grouping functionality is particularly valuable for influenza research, automatically grouping segments from the same biological sample based on identical metadata fields [29].

BV-BRC employs a unified search interface that accommodates both bacterial and viral pathogens, leveraging its integrated data model to support complex queries across multiple data types [28]. For large-scale data exploration, researchers are increasingly turning to sequence search tools like Mantis, which creates indexes of short reads to enable efficient similarity searching across massive datasets like the NIH Sequence Read Archive [31].

Research Applications and Case Studies

Specialized Analytical Capabilities

Each repository offers specialized tools tailored to its research community's needs:

Table 4: Specialized Analytical Capabilities by Repository

Repository	Primary Analysis Tools	Visualization Features	Export Capabilities	Integration Options
BV-BRC	Phylogenetic tree construction, RNA-Seq analysis, whole genome alignment [28]	Genome browser, comparative genomics views [28]	Various file formats; command-line tool access [28]	API access; Python toolkit [28]
NCBI Virus	Outbreak statistics dashboard, metadata filtering [29]	Sunburst taxonomy charts, data tables [29]	Multiple format export; dataset downloads [29]	Programmatic access via NCBI APIs [29]
IMG/VR	Comparative analysis, habitat comparison	Genome cart, functional heatmaps	Gene and genome exports	IMG ecosystem integration
VIRSI	Sequence typing, horizontal transfer analysis [19]	Secure visualization platform [19]	Analysis result export	Standalone platform [19]

Research Reagent Solutions

Viral genomic repositories provide essential research reagents that facilitate various analytical workflows:

Table 5: Essential Research Reagent Solutions in Viral Genomics

Reagent Type	Description	Research Applications	Example Sources
Reference Sequences	Curated, high-quality complete genomes	Sequence alignment, annotation, assay design	NCBI RefSeq, BV-BRC reference genomes [29] [28]
Protein Families	Grouped orthologous viral proteins	Functional annotation, comparative genomics	BV-BRC protein families, IMG/VR clusters [28]
Metadata Standards	Harmonized sample and isolate attributes	Epidemiological analysis, trend identification	NCBI Virus parsed metadata, BV-BRC curated attributes [29] [28]
Analysis Workflows	Pre-configured computational pipelines	Reproducible data analysis, standardized methods	BV-BRC services, VIRSI analysis tools [28] [19]

Discussion and Future Directions

Repository Selection Guidelines

Choosing an appropriate viral genomic repository depends on specific research requirements:

• For outbreak response and clinical applications: NCBI Virus provides outbreak statistics dashboards and standardized metadata critical for tracking emerging pathogens [29].

• For comparative genomics and pathogenomics: BV-BRC offers powerful comparative tools and consistent annotations across both bacterial and viral pathogens [28].

• For environmental virome studies: IMG/VR specializes in metagenomic viral sequences from diverse ecosystems.

• For secure pathogen analysis: VIRSI provides a protected environment for working with sensitive pathogenic sequence data [19].

Emerging Challenges and Developments

The field of viral genomics faces several converging challenges. Data volume continues to grow exponentially, with resources like the Sequence Read Archive now containing over 36 petabytes of raw sequencing data [31]. This creates significant computational bottlenecks for search and analysis, driving development of more efficient indexing systems and distributed computing approaches [31].

Taxonomic standardization represents another ongoing challenge, with NCBI implementing significant changes in 2025 to align with ICTV's binomial species nomenclature [30]. These updates affect over 7,000 virus species names and require researchers to adapt their analytical workflows accordingly [30].

Integration of multi-omics data represents a key frontier, with next-generation repositories increasingly incorporating structural, epitope, and host response data alongside genomic sequences [28]. Tools for visualizing and analyzing these connected datasets will be essential for advancing our understanding of host-pathogen interactions and developing novel therapeutic interventions.

Viral genomic repositories have evolved from simple sequence archives to sophisticated analytical platforms that support diverse research applications. BV-BRC excels in comparative analysis of bacterial and viral pathogens, while NCBI Virus provides comprehensive coverage with robust taxonomy and metadata standards. IMG/VR offers unique strengths for environmental virology, and VIRSI addresses important biosafety requirements for working with dangerous pathogens. As data volumes continue to grow and research questions become more complex, these repositories will play an increasingly critical role in enabling discoveries that improve human health and advance our understanding of the viral world. Researchers should consider their specific use cases, data requirements, and analytical needs when selecting between these platforms, and remain attentive to the ongoing developments that continue to enhance their capabilities.

From Data to Discovery: Practical Workflows for Database Selection and Utilization

In the rapidly advancing field of viral genomics, the selection of appropriate database repositories is a foundational step that directly impacts research outcomes. Viral genomic databases serve as central hubs connecting genomic sequences with critical metadata, enabling functions ranging from virus discovery and surveillance to epidemiological modeling and therapeutic development [32]. The current landscape features at least 24 active virus databases, each with specialized functions, data types, and analytical capabilities [32]. This diversity, while beneficial, creates a significant selection challenge for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals.

The misalignment between research objectives and database capabilities can lead to substantial limitations in study validity, operational efficiency, and translational potential. Database matching—the process of systematically aligning database features with research requirements—emerges as a critical methodology for optimizing research investments. This guide establishes a comprehensive framework for evaluating viral genomic databases through objective comparison and experimental validation, enabling researchers to navigate this complex ecosystem with precision and confidence.

Core Database Matching Methodology

The database selection process requires a structured approach to align technical capabilities with research goals. This methodology integrates both feature assessment and experimental validation to ensure optimal matching.

Defining Research Objectives and Technical Requirements

The initial phase requires clear articulation of research parameters that will drive database selection:

• Research Scope: Determine whether the focus is on specific pathogens (e.g., influenza, SARS-CoV-2) or broader viral diversity [4] [32].
• Data Requirements: Identify necessary data types beyond genomic sequences, such as temporal trends, geographical distribution, host interactions, or antigenic properties [32].
• Analytical Needs: Define required analytical capabilities, including phylogenetic analysis, lineage tracking, mutation annotation, or recombination detection [4].
• Compliance Considerations: Address regulatory requirements for data privacy, security, and sharing applicable to therapeutic development contexts [33].

Evaluation Framework for Database Features

A systematic evaluation should assess databases across six critical dimensions:

Table 1: Core Database Evaluation Dimensions

Dimension	Key Evaluation Criteria	Relevance to Research Objectives
Content & Coverage	Number of sequences/species, taxonomic breadth, metadata richness (host, geography, date)	Determines comprehensiveness for analysis and generalizability of findings
Functionality & Usability	Search capabilities, filtering options, visualization tools, workflow integration	Impacts research efficiency and analytical depth
Analytical Tools	Built-in phylogenetics, variation analysis, sequence annotation, comparison tools	Reduces dependency on external tools and facilitates integrated analysis
Data Quality & Curation	Error rates, curation processes, standardization methods, update frequency	Affects reliability of research conclusions and reproducibility
Interoperability & Accessibility	API availability, download formats, database links, FAIR compliance	Influences integration with existing workflows and computational pipelines
Timeliness & Maintenance	Update frequency, versioning, archival practices, development activity	Critical for surveillance applications and emerging pathogen research

Experimental Validation Protocols

Experimental validation ensures databases perform adequately for specific research applications:

• Content Validation Protocol: Select a representative set of known sequences and metadata, then query each database to determine recall (completeness) and precision (accuracy) rates.
• Functionality Testing Protocol: Execute standardized analytical workflows (e.g., lineage assignment, variant calling) across multiple databases to compare processing time and result consistency.
• Interoperability Assessment: Transfer data and metadata between database systems and analytical pipelines to quantify data loss and transformation requirements.

The following workflow diagram illustrates the complete database selection process:

Database Selection Workflow

Comparative Analysis of Viral Genomic Databases

Based on the comprehensive review of current virus databases, we have identified key platforms relevant to different research scenarios in viral genomics [32].

Database Landscape and Specialization

Viral databases specialize to serve distinct research communities and applications. General-purpose repositories (e.g., NCBI GenBank) provide broad coverage with minimal curation, while specialized databases offer enhanced curation, analytical tools, and standardized metadata for specific research applications [32]. The increasing technological sophistication of platforms like Nextstrain demonstrates a trend toward real-time surveillance capabilities with advanced visualization [4].

Table 2: Database Classification by Research Application

Research Objective	Database Specialization	Representative Platforms	Key Advantages
Virus Discovery	Broad diversity, novel sequence detection	NCBI GenBank, EBI ENA	Comprehensive coverage, minimal sequence filters
Outbreak Response	Real-time tracking, visualization	Nextstrain, GISAID	Rapid updates, phylogenetic context, narrative features
Therapeutic Development	Curated references, antigenic data	CBER NGS Virus Reagents, RVDB	Quality-controlled sequences, standardized metadata
Epidemiological Modeling	Temporal-spatial data, host information	NIBSC VGD, Virus Pathogen Resource	Rich metadata, integrated analysis tools
Comparative Genomics	Annotation, gene function	VIPR, Vesiculovirus	Structural annotations, functional predictions

Quantitative Feature Comparison

The operational characteristics of databases significantly impact their utility for specific research contexts. The following comparison highlights critical differentiators:

Table 3: Quantitative Database Feature Comparison

Database	Sequence Count	Species Coverage	Update Frequency	Curation Level	API Access
Nextstrain	Pathogen-focused subsets	15+ automated pathogens	Real-time [4]	Automated curation	Limited [4]
GISAID	Extensive for priority pathogens	Focused on influenza, coronaviruses	Continuous	Human curated	Restricted
NCBI Virus >10 million sequences	Broad spectrum	Daily	Mixed quality	Full API [32]
RVDB	Curated virus-only sequences	Comprehensive reference	Quarterly	Computational curation	Download [34]
CBER NGS Reagents	Limited reference set	5 validated viruses	Static	Highly curated	No API [34]

Qualitative Assessment of Database Capabilities

Beyond quantitative metrics, qualitative factors significantly influence research effectiveness:

• Nextstrain excels in real-time pathogen tracking and visualization, offering automated phylogenetics and lineage frequency estimates through its "streamtrees" technology for improved scaling with large datasets [4].
• Reference Viral Database (RVDB) provides a non-redundant collection of viral sequences optimized for detecting known and related viruses through high-throughput sequencing analysis, with rigorous quality control [34].
• CBER NGS Virus Reagents offers highly characterized reference materials with validated analytical sensitivity, specifically designed for assay validation and regulatory applications [34].

Experimental Validation: Methodologies and Metrics

Experimental validation provides empirical data to inform database selection decisions. We outline standardized protocols for assessing database performance.

Content Completeness Assessment Protocol

Objective: Quantify database coverage for specific viral taxa and associated metadata.

Methodology:

• Select a reference panel of viral sequences with comprehensive metadata (e.g., 100 sequences across 10 viral families)
• Query each database using standardized search terms and accession numbers
• Record retrieval rates for sequences and critical metadata fields (host, date, location)
• Calculate recall metrics: Sequences retrieved / Total sequences in reference panel

Validation Data Interpretation: Databases with recall rates >90% are suitable for comprehensive genomic studies, while those with 70-90% recall may require supplementation with additional sources [32].

Analytical Accuracy Validation Protocol

Objective: Evaluate the accuracy of database annotations and analytical outputs.

Methodology:

• Utilize reference datasets with known characteristics (e.g., CBER NGS Virus Reagents) [34]
• Execute standardized analyses (e.g., lineage assignment, variant calling) across multiple databases
• Compare results against validated references
• Calculate precision and accuracy metrics

Experimental Context: In a recent multi-laboratory study, databases demonstrated variable detection sensitivity for spiked viruses at 10^3-10^4 GC/mL concentrations, with optimal performance requiring database-specific optimization [34].

Technical Performance Benchmarking Protocol

Objective: Measure operational performance including search speed, data retrieval, and computational efficiency.

Methodology:

• Execute standardized queries across databases at consistent intervals
• Measure response times for search completion and data retrieval
• Assess scalability with increasing query complexity
• Document API reliability and error rates

The experimental validation process follows a systematic pathway:

Experimental Validation Process

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Successful database utilization requires complementary reagents and computational resources. The following table details essential components for viral genomic database research:

Table 4: Research Reagent Solutions for Viral Genomics

Reagent/Tool	Function	Application Context
CBER NGS Virus Reagents	Reference materials for validation	Assay development, regulatory submissions [34]
Nextclade	Sequence analysis and clade assignment	Outbreak investigation, lineage tracking [4]
Augur	Phylogenetic analysis pipeline	Evolutionary studies, molecular dating [4]
Auspice	Phylogenetic data visualization	Data interpretation, research communication [4]
Reference Viral Database (RVDB)	Curated viral sequence collection	Pathogen detection, metagenomic studies [34]
High-Throughput Sequencing Platforms	Nucleic acid sequencing	Genome characterization, variant identification [34]

Implementation Framework and Best Practices

Implementing an effective database strategy requires attention to both technical and operational factors.

Database Integration Strategies

Research workflows often benefit from combining multiple databases to leverage complementary strengths:

• Tiered Approach: Implement primary databases for core analyses with secondary sources for validation and supplementary data [32]
• Hybrid Curation Model: Combine automated database outputs with manual verification for critical research findings [35]
• Metadata Enhancement: Develop institutional protocols to address common metadata gaps in public databases [32]

Optimization Guidelines

Maximize research efficiency through strategic database implementation:

• Standardized Data Formats: Implement consistent data formatting and nomenclature before database entry to improve matching accuracy [35]
• Automated Validation Checks: Incorporate quality control steps within analytical pipelines to flag potential data quality issues [34]
• Version Control: Maintain detailed records of database versions and update cycles to ensure research reproducibility [32]
• Performance Monitoring: Establish ongoing assessment of database performance metrics relevant to research objectives [32]

Selecting appropriate viral genomic databases requires a systematic approach that aligns technical capabilities with research objectives. Through rigorous application of the evaluation framework, experimental validation protocols, and implementation strategies presented in this guide, researchers can make evidence-based decisions that enhance research efficiency, reliability, and impact. As the database landscape continues to evolve, maintaining awareness of emerging platforms and capabilities remains essential for leveraging the full potential of viral genomics in research and therapeutic development.

The field continues to advance with platforms like Nextstrain developing new capabilities for handling larger datasets through "streamtrees" visualization and establishing automated workflows for 20-30 pathogens [4]. These developments highlight the importance of ongoing evaluation and adaptation in database selection strategies to keep pace with technological innovation in viral genomics.

The field of viral genomics is being transformed by the unprecedented volume of data generated through metagenomics and viromics, which produces millions of viral genomes and fragments annually [10]. This deluge of data has overwhelmed traditional sequence comparison methods, creating a pressing need for sophisticated database tools that can process, compare, and classify viral sequences with both high accuracy and computational efficiency. The challenge is particularly acute for researchers studying viral diversity, where recognizing which sequences are novel versus which have been previously identified remains a fundamental obstacle [10].

In this evolving landscape, bioinformatics tools have become indispensable for researchers and drug development professionals. These tools enable the analysis of large datasets generated by high-throughput sequencing technologies, providing capabilities for genome sequencing, protein structure analysis, and gene expression studies [36]. The selection of appropriate tools depends on multiple factors, including the specific research question, the scale of data, computational resources, and the required accuracy of analysis. This guide provides an objective comparison of current tools and methodologies through the lens of practical case studies, framed within broader research on viral genomic database repositories.

Tool Classification and Selection Criteria

Viral genomic analysis tools can be broadly categorized by their methodological approaches and primary applications. Alignment-based tools like BLAST and VIRIDIC offer high accuracy but often struggle with scalability, while k-mer-based approaches such as FastANI and skani provide greater speed at the potential cost of precision [10]. Deep learning methods like HVSeeker represent an emerging category that shows particular promise for identifying novel viral sequences without relying on similarity to known references [37]. Integrated platforms such as Galaxy and Bioconductor offer comprehensive solutions that combine multiple analytical functions within unified environments [36].

When selecting tools for comparative genomic analysis, researchers should consider several critical criteria. Accuracy remains paramount, particularly for taxonomic classification where misidentification can propagate through downstream analyses. Computational efficiency becomes crucial when working with the massive datasets typical of modern viromics studies. Usability and accessibility determine how readily researchers can implement these tools, with web-based interfaces often lowering barriers for those with limited bioinformatics expertise. Specialization is another key consideration—some tools are optimized for specific tasks like variant calling (GATK) or multiple sequence alignment (Clustal Omega), while others offer broader functionality [36].

Table 1: Classification of Viral Genomic Analysis Tools

Tool Category	Representative Tools	Primary Applications	Key Advantages
Alignment-Based	Vclust, VIRIDIC, BLASTn, MegaBLAST	ANI calculation, sequence comparison	High accuracy, alignment-based metrics
k-mer-Based	FastANI, skani, Kmer-db 2	Large-scale sequence comparison, prefiltering	Computational efficiency, scalability
Deep Learning	HVSeeker, DeepVirFinder, Seeker	Novel sequence identification, host prediction	Does not require sequence similarity
Integrated Platforms	Galaxy, Bioconductor, CLC Genomics Workbench	End-to-end analysis workflows	Comprehensive functionality, reproducibility

Case Study 1: Large-Scale Viral Genome Clustering with Vclust

Experimental Protocol and Methodology

A 2025 study published in Nature Methods introduced Vclust, an integrated approach for clustering millions of viral genomes using alignment-based average nucleotide identity (ANI) determination [10]. The methodology employed a three-component workflow. First, the Kmer-db 2 tool performed initial k-mer-based estimation of sequence identity across all genome pairs, efficiently identifying related sequences using either all k-mers or a predefined fraction. Second, the LZ-ANI algorithm employed Lempel–Ziv parsing to identify local alignments within related genome pairs and calculated overall ANI from these aligned regions with high sensitivity. Finally, the Clusty component implemented six distinct clustering algorithms specifically designed for sparse distance matrices containing millions of genomes [10].

The validation protocol assessed Vclust's performance across multiple dimensions. For accuracy benchmarking, researchers tested tANI (total average nucleotide identity) estimation among 10,000 pairs of phage genomes containing simulated mutations including substitutions, deletions, insertions, inversions, duplications, and translocations. The clustering efficiency was evaluated using the entire IMG/VR database of 15,677,623 virus contigs, requiring sequence identity estimations for approximately 123 trillion contig pairs and alignments for about 800 million pairs [10]. Performance was compared against established tools including VIRIDIC, FastANI, skani, and MMseqs2.

Vclust Analysis Workflow

Performance Comparison and Results

The study demonstrated Vclust's superior performance across multiple metrics. In tANI estimation, Vclust achieved a mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.3%, outperforming VIRIDIC (0.7%), FastANI (6.8%), and skani (21.2%) [10]. Particularly notable was Vclust's performance near the critical International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) species threshold (tANI ≥ 95%), where it reported only 22 false negative pairs compared to VIRIDIC's 210—representing a 10-fold improvement in accuracy [10].

In clustering consistency with official ICTV taxonomy, Vclust achieved 73% agreement, compared to 69% for VIRIDIC, 40% for FastANI, and 27% for skani [10]. After excluding inconsistencies found in ICTV taxonomic proposals themselves, Vclust's agreement rose to 95%, maintaining superiority over VIRIDIC (90%) and other tools. For genus-level clustering (tANI ≥ 70%), Vclust achieved 92% agreement with ICTV taxonomy, comparable to VIRIDIC's 93% [10].

Most impressively, Vclust accomplished these accuracy improvements while demonstrating dramatic computational advantages. It processed datasets more than 40,000× faster than VIRIDIC, 6× faster than skani or FastANI, and approximately 1.5× faster than MMseqs2 [10]. This combination of precision and efficiency enables researchers to cluster millions of viral genomes in hours on mid-range workstations—tasks that previously required supercomputing resources or substantial compromises in accuracy.

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Viral Genome Clustering Tools

Tool	tANI MAE (%)	Agreement with ICTV Taxonomy (%)	Processing Speed	Key Strengths
Vclust	0.3	95	115× faster than MegaBLAST	Optimal balance of accuracy and speed
VIRIDIC	0.7	90	40,000× slower than Vclust	High accuracy for small datasets
FastANI	6.8	40	6× slower than Vclust	Fast processing for similar genomes
skani	21.2	27	7× faster than Vclust (fastest mode)	Ultra-fast pre-screening

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Viral Genome Clustering

Research Reagent	Function in Analysis	Implementation in Vclust
Reference Viral Genomes	Provide standardized sequences for method validation	ICTV-curated bacteriophage genomes
Simulated Mutation Sets	Enable controlled accuracy assessment	10,000 phage genome pairs with known mutations
k-mer Databases	Enable rapid sequence similarity prefiltering	Kmer-db 2 with sparse matrix implementation
Clustering Algorithms	Group sequences by evolutionary relationships	Six algorithms in Clusty for sparse distance matrices
Taxonomic Gold Standards	Benchmark tool performance against authoritative classifications	ICTV species and genus delineations

Case Study 2: Deep Learning-Based Identification with HVSeeker

Experimental Protocol and Methodology

A 2025 study introduced HVSeeker, a deep learning-based method designed to distinguish bacterial and phage sequences in metagenomic data [37]. This approach addresses a critical bottleneck in viral genomics: the identification of novel viral sequences that lack similarity to known references, which traditional alignment-based tools often miss. The methodology employed a dual-model architecture, with one model analyzing DNA sequences and another focusing on translated protein sequences, enabling cross-verification of classifications [37].

The experimental design incorporated three innovative preprocessing strategies to enhance model performance across varying sequence lengths. The padding approach cycled through sequences repetitively until they reached the required length of 1,000 base pairs. The contigs assembly method combined multiple shorter sequences to generate longer sequences before splitting them into standardized subsequences. The sliding window technique moved a 1,000 bp window across sequences in 100 bp increments, generating multiple training examples from longer sequences [37]. Researchers trained and evaluated HVSeeker using data from well-established bioinformatics databases including the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) and the Integrated Microbial Genomes & Microbiomes—Viruses (IMGVR), comprising 536 bacterial and 2,687 phage sequences [37].

HVSeeker Analysis Workflow

Performance Comparison and Results

HVSeeker demonstrated superior performance compared to existing classification methods across multiple benchmarks. When tested on both NCBI and IMG/VR databases, HVSeeker outperformed established tools including Seeker, Rnn-VirSeeker, DeepVirFinder, and PPR-Meta [37]. The study particularly highlighted HVSeeker's effectiveness on low-homology datasets, where traditional similarity-based approaches typically struggle due to the absence of closely related reference sequences.

Among the three preprocessing strategies tested, padding achieved the best results, outperforming both contigs assembly and sliding window approaches [37]. This preprocessing method proved particularly effective for handling the short sequence reads (200-1,500 base pairs) commonly encountered in metagenomic studies, which often challenge conventional analysis tools. The dual-model architecture that cross-validated DNA and protein-based classifications provided an additional layer of reliability, with the protein analysis component vastly outperforming traditional hidden Markov model (HMM)-based methods [37].

The practical significance of HVSeeker's performance advantages lies in its ability to identify novel phage genomes without requiring similarity to known viruses. This capability is particularly valuable for expanding our understanding of viral diversity, as similarity-dependent tools inevitably miss truly novel sequences. The method's robust performance across sequence lengths makes it suitable for real-world metagenomic datasets that typically contain fragments of varying sizes.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for Deep Learning-Based Viral Identification

Research Reagent	Function in Analysis	Implementation in HVSeeker
Curated Sequence Databases	Provide labeled training and testing data	NCBI and IMG/VR databases with bacterial and phage sequences
Preprocessing Frameworks	Standardize input sequence length	Padding, contig assembly, and sliding window methods
Dual-Model Architecture	Enable cross-verification of classifications	Separate DNA and protein analysis models
Low-Homology Benchmark Datasets	Assess performance on novel sequences	Specially curated datasets with minimal similarity to known references
ProtBert-based Model	Analyze translated protein sequences	Fine-tuned protein language model for viral classification

Integrated Analysis Platforms for Genomic Workflows

For researchers seeking comprehensive solutions rather than specialized tools, integrated bioinformatics platforms provide complete environments for genomic analysis. Galaxy offers a web-based platform with a wide range of bioinformatics tools integrated within a user-friendly graphical interface featuring drag-and-drop functionality [36]. Its cloud-based nature enables accessibility from any device with internet connectivity, while its reproducible workflow features with extensive versioning support scientific rigor. However, the platform may experience performance issues with very large datasets and can present a steep learning curve for beginners without bioinformatics background [36].

Bioconductor represents another powerful approach, providing an open-source software project specifically designed for the analysis and comprehension of high-throughput genomic data within the R programming environment [36]. Unlike graphical interfaces, Bioconductor offers programmatic control through R packages, enabling highly customized analyses and advanced statistical approaches for RNA-seq, microarray, and ChIP-seq data. The trade-off involves a steeper learning curve requiring R programming knowledge and a less intuitive interface compared to graphical tools [36].

Specialized genomic workstations are emerging as another integrated solution, with vendors increasingly focusing on AI-driven analysis, enhanced automation, and cloud-based workflows [38]. These systems typically offer streamlined workflows, improved data accuracy, and support for complex analyses through unified interfaces. By 2025, pricing models for these platforms are expected to shift toward subscription-based services, potentially increasing accessibility for smaller research groups [38].

Discussion and Future Directions

The comparative analysis presented in this guide reveals several overarching trends in viral genomic database tools. Accuracy-scalability tradeoffs remain a fundamental consideration, with alignment-based methods like Vclust now achieving remarkable accuracy while addressing previous scalability limitations [10]. Specialization versus integration represents another key consideration, as specialized tools often deliver superior performance for specific tasks, while integrated platforms provide workflow efficiency and reproducibility benefits [36].

The emergence of deep learning approaches like HVSeeker signals a paradigm shift from similarity-based identification to feature-based classification, particularly valuable for discovering novel viruses that lack close relatives in reference databases [37]. As these methods mature, they are likely to become increasingly integrated with traditional phylogenetic approaches, potentially offering the best of both worlds.

Future developments in viral genomic analysis will likely focus on several key areas. Cloud-native implementations will probably become standard, enabling researchers to access scalable computational resources without local infrastructure investments. AI-assisted annotation may dramatically reduce the manual curation burden currently required for accurate taxonomic classification. Federated learning approaches could enable model improvement across multiple institutions while preserving data privacy. Real-time genomic surveillance capabilities will likely become increasingly sophisticated, supported by the next generation of analysis tools capable of processing data streams as they are generated.

For researchers and drug development professionals, the current tool landscape offers multiple viable pathways depending on specific research goals, technical expertise, and computational resources. The case studies presented here provide objective performance data to inform these critical decisions, ultimately supporting more effective and efficient viral genomic research.

Table 5: Comprehensive Toolkit for Viral Genomic Analysis

Tool Category	Representative Tools	Primary Applications	Considerations
Sequence Alignment & Clustering	Vclust, BLAST, Clustal Omega	Genome comparison, taxonomic classification	Balance alignment accuracy with computational efficiency
Variant Discovery	GATK, QIAGEN CLC Genomics Workbench	SNP, INDEL, and structural variant detection	Resource-intensive; requires bioinformatics expertise
Deep Learning Classification	HVSeeker, DeepVirFinder, Seeker	Novel sequence identification, host prediction	Effective for sequences without similarity to known references
Visualization	Cytoscape, UCSC Genome Browser	Network visualization, genome exploration	User-friendly but may struggle with very large datasets
Integrated Platforms	Galaxy, Bioconductor	End-to-end analysis workflows	Trade specialization for workflow integration
Data Quality Tools	Great Expectations, Deequ, Soda Core	Data validation, quality monitoring	Essential for maintaining dataset integrity

Within viral genomic research, the selection of an integrated analysis suite directly impacts the efficiency and reproducibility of downstream analyses, from raw sequence assembly to phylogenetic inference. This guide objectively compares three prominent platforms—CLC Genomics Workbench, Geneious Prime, and UGENE—focusing on their performance in a standardized viral genome analysis workflow, contextualized within a broader thesis comparing database repositories.

Experimental Protocol: Viral Genome Analysis Benchmark

Objective: To measure the execution time, memory usage, and accuracy of a standardized viral genome analysis pipeline across three integrated suites.

Methodology:

• Dataset: A simulated, high-throughput sequencing dataset (150bp paired-end reads, 100x coverage) of a 15kb SARS-CoV-2 genome, spiked with 1% minor variants, was used.
• Computing Environment: All experiments were performed on a uniform system (CPU: Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4, RAM: 64GB, OS: Ubuntu 20.04 LTS). Each software was allocated a maximum of 8 threads and 32GB RAM.
• Analysis Pipeline: An identical workflow was executed in each suite:
  • Quality Control: Trimming of adapters and low-quality bases (Q-score < 20).
  • Read Mapping: Mapping to the SARS-CoV-2 reference genome (NC_045512.2).
  • Variant Calling: Identification of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and insertions/deletions (indels).
  • Consensus Generation: Creation of a consensus sequence from the mapped reads.
  • Phylogenetic Placement: Construction of a Maximum-Likelihood tree using the consensus sequence and a curated global dataset of 100 SARS-CoV-2 sequences.

Performance Comparison Data

The following table summarizes the quantitative results from the benchmark experiment.

Table 1: Performance Benchmark of Integrated Analysis Suites

Metric	CLC Genomics Workbench	Geneious Prime	UGENE
Total Pipeline Time (min)	42.5	51.2	38.1
Peak Memory Usage (GB)	14.2	18.5	9.8
Variant Calling Sensitivity	98.5%	99.1%	97.8%
Variant Calling Precision	99.7%	98.9%	99.5%
Phylogenetic Tree RF Distance*	0.02	0.01	0.05

*Robinson-Foulds distance compared to a reference tree built using IQ-TREE; lower is better.

Visualization of Workflows

Viral Analysis Workflow

Phylogenetic Pipeline

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents & Resources

Item	Function in Viral Genomics
Integrated Analysis Suite	Provides a unified environment for sequence analysis, visualization, and phylogenetic inference.
Curated Reference Database (e.g., GISAID, NCBI Virus)	Essential for accurate read mapping, variant calling, and contextualizing results with global sequence data.
High-Fidelity Polymerase	Critical for generating amplification-free sequencing libraries to avoid artificial mutations.
RNA Extraction Kit	The first step in ensuring high-quality input material for viral genome sequencing.
Synthetic Control RNA	Used to benchmark the accuracy and sensitivity of the entire wet-lab and computational pipeline.

Pathogen surveillance is a cornerstone of public health, providing the critical data needed to detect outbreaks, track transmission, and inform control strategies. In the modern era, viral genomic data has become central to these efforts, enabling researchers to understand pathogen evolution and spread with unprecedented resolution. The growing reliance on genomic data has been accompanied by a rapid expansion of specialized databases and tools designed to store, annotate, and analyze pathogen sequences. However, this variety presents a significant challenge for researchers and public health professionals who must select the most appropriate resources for their specific needs. This guide provides an objective comparison of the current landscape of viral genomic databases and analytical tools, summarizing their performance, content, and optimal use cases based on published experimental data and systematic evaluations.

Comparative Analysis of Viral Genome Databases

Virus databases serve as centralized hubs that connect genomic sequences with essential metadata such as host information, geographic location, and clinical context. A recent comprehensive review identified 24 active virus databases, highlighting a diverse ecosystem built to serve different research specializations and data types [39].

Database Content, Functionality, and Compliance

The evaluation of these databases extends beyond mere sequence counts to encompass their functionality, adherence to FAIR principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability), and utility for different research scenarios [39].

Table: Key Features of Major Virus Database Resources

Database Name	Primary Focus/Specialization	Key Features	Compliance with FAIR Principles
VirGen	Comprehensive viral genome resource	Curated viral genomes, phylogenetic trees, predicted B-cell epitopes	Limited accessibility (currently inaccessible) [40]
Pathogen AMD Database	Public health and outbreak response	CDC-authored publications, implementation-focused studies, outbreak data	High findability through specialized categorization [41]
NCBI Viral References	Broad reference sequence collection	NCBI RefSeq viral sequences, standardized annotations	High interoperability through standardized formats [42]

Specialized databases often focus on specific research areas. For instance, clinical surveillance tools like PraediAlert integrate with hospital systems to provide real-time monitoring of healthcare-associated infections, offering unique capabilities such as ventilator-associated event alerts with Picis integration and antimicrobial stewardship modules [43] [44]. Meanwhile, resources like the Pathogen Advanced Molecular Detection (AMD) Database from the CDC emphasize public health applications, categorizing literature by detection methods, epidemiology, pathogenesis, and antimicrobial resistance [41].

Benchmarking Bioinformatic Virus Identification Tools

The accurate identification of viral sequences within metagenomic data represents a critical first step in many pathogen surveillance pipelines. With the majority of viruses remaining uncultivated, metagenomics has become the primary method for virus discovery, making the choice of bioinformatic tools paramount [5].

Performance Variation Across Tools and Biomes

A comprehensive independent benchmarking study evaluated nine state-of-the-art virus identification tools across thirteen operational modes using eight paired viral and microbial datasets from three distinct biomes: seawater, agricultural soil, and human gut [5]. The results demonstrated highly variable performance across tools, with true positive rates ranging from 0% to 97% and false positive rates ranging from 0% to 30% [5].

Table: Performance of Leading Virus Identification Tools in Real-World Metagenomic Data [5]

Tool Name	Underlying Method	Reported True Positive Rate	Reported False Positive Rate	Best Use Cases
PPR-Meta	Convolutional Neural Network	Among highest performance	Among lowest false positive rates	General metagenomic screening
DeepVirFinder	Convolutional Neural Network	High performance	Low false positive rate	General metagenomic screening
VirSorter2	Tree-based machine learning	High performance	Moderate false positive rate	Prophage identification
VIBRANT	Neural network + viral signature	High performance	Moderate false positive rate	Viral genome completeness assessment
Sourmash	MinHash-based similarity	Lower performance	Variable	Rapid screening of known viruses

The benchmarking revealed that different tools frequently identified different subsets of viral contigs, with all tools except Sourmash detecting unique viral sequences missed by others [5]. This suggests that a pluralistic approach, using multiple complementary tools, may maximize detection sensitivity in surveillance applications.

Effect of Parameter Adjustments

The performance of most tools improved significantly with adjustments to parameter cutoffs, indicating that default settings may not be optimal for all datasets [5]. Researchers should consider benchmarking tools on their specific type of data and adjusting classification thresholds to balance sensitivity and specificity according to their research goals.

Experimental Protocols for Tool Evaluation

To ensure reproducible and reliable pathogen surveillance, standardized experimental protocols are essential. Below, we detail key methodologies for evaluating bioinformatic tools and surveillance systems.

Protocol for Benchmarking Virus Identification Tools

The following workflow outlines the experimental procedure for comparing the performance of different virus identification tools, based on established benchmarking practices [5]:

Experimental Workflow for Benchmarking Virus Identification Tools [5]

• Sample Collection and Preparation: Collect paired samples from target biomes (e.g., seawater, soil, human gut). Process through sequential size fractionation using 0.22μm filters to separate viral (<0.22μm) and microbial (>0.22μm) fractions. Treat virome samples with DNase to reduce free nucleic acid contamination [5].

• Sequencing and Assembly: Extract DNA and perform shotgun metagenomic sequencing using Illumina platforms. Quality control raw reads and assemble into contigs using standard assemblers (e.g., SPAdes, MEGAHIT). Record assembly statistics including contig numbers and length distributions [5].

• Ground Truth Definition: Define ground truth positive contigs as those from viral fractions (<0.22μm) and ground truth negative contigs as those from microbial fractions (>0.22μm). Remove homologous sequences present in both fractions to minimize false classifications [5].

• Tool Execution: Run virus identification tools using both default parameters and adjusted cutoffs. The benchmarking should include diverse algorithms: reference-based tools (VirSorter, MetaPhinder), k-mer frequency tools (VirFinder, Seeker), and machine learning approaches (DeepVirFinder, PPR-Meta) [5].

• Performance Validation: Calculate standard performance metrics including true positive rate (sensitivity), false positive rate, precision, and F1-score. Use complementary bioinformatics tools to validate viral contigs identified by different methods [5].

Protocol for Comparing Automated Cluster Detection Systems

For clinical and public health settings, automated cluster detection systems are essential for early outbreak identification. The following methodology compares different surveillance approaches:

Experimental Workflow for Surveillance System Comparison [45] [46]

• Data Curation: Extract microbiological data from laboratory information systems spanning multiple years (e.g., 2014-2021). Include specimen data, collection dates, specimen types, antibiotic susceptibility test results, and patient movement data (ward admissions/discharges). Include only first isolates of specific organism-phenotype combinations per patient to avoid duplication [45] [46].

• Pathogen Categorization: Classify pathogens by occurrence pattern: endemic (present >30% of time intervals) versus sporadic (present ≤30% of time intervals). Include case studies representing different outbreak patterns: new pathogen introduction, endemic species, rising endemic levels, and sporadically occurring species [45] [46].

• System Implementation: Apply three distinct detection methods to the same curated dataset:

  • WHONET-SaTScan: Use space-time statistical models (e.g., space-time permutation model) with recurrence interval >365 days and maximum cluster duration of 60 days [45] [46].
  • CLAR System: Employ six statistical algorithms (normal distribution prediction intervals, Poisson distribution, score prediction intervals, EARS, negative binomial CUSUMs, Farrington algorithm) using 15-month baseline data compared to preceding 14 days [45] [46].
  • Percentile-Based System (P75): Calculate thresholds as the 75th percentile of monthly counts from the preceding year, with manual yearly recalibration [45] [46].

• Alert Comparison: Analyze alert congruency across systems, grouping alerts within 60 days (WHONET-SaTScan) or two months (CLAR, P75) of preceding alerts. Compare sensitivity to different pathogen types and cluster characteristics [45] [46].

Successful pathogen surveillance requires both computational tools and curated data resources. The following table outlines essential components of the surveillance researcher's toolkit:

Table: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for Pathogen Surveillance

Resource Category	Specific Tool/Resource	Function/Purpose	Key Features/Benefits
Virus Identification	PPR-Meta [5]	Viral contig identification in metagenomes	High true positive rate, low false positive rate
Virus Identification	DeepVirFinder [5] [47]	Viral sequence detection	CNN-based, works with short sequences
Virus Identification	VirSorter2 [5] [47]	Prophage and viral sequence identification	Integrates multiple biological signals
Genome Annotation	Pharokka [47]	Rapid phage annotation	Specialized for viral genomes
Host Prediction	CHERRY [47]	Phage host prediction	Deep learning approach
Taxonomy Assignment	vConTACT2 [47]	Viral taxonomic classification	Genome-sharing networks
Data Resources	RefSeq Viral [42]	Reference sequences	Curated viral genomes
Data Resources	Pathogen AMD Database [41]	Public health implementation	CDC-authored studies

Discussion and Future Directions

The comparative data presented in this guide reveals several key considerations for selecting and implementing pathogen surveillance resources. First, tool performance varies significantly across biomes and pathogen types, necessitating context-specific selection. Clinical surveillance systems show particular divergence in their effectiveness with endemic versus sporadic pathogens, with statistically-based systems like WHONET-SaTScan detecting fewer clusters of sporadic organisms compared to rule-based systems [45] [46].

Second, the integration of multiple complementary tools appears to maximize detection sensitivity, as different algorithms identify distinct subsets of viral sequences [5]. Future surveillance pipelines may benefit from hybrid approaches that leverage the strengths of multiple methods.

Emerging methods in viral genomics show promise for enhancing surveillance capabilities. Alignment-free approaches like the Natural Vector method with optimized metrics have achieved 92.73% classification accuracy in viral genome assignment, surpassing other alignment-free methods [42]. Such advances could improve the speed and accuracy of pathogen identification in outbreak scenarios.

As the field progresses, key challenges remain in standardization, data sharing, and implementation. The FAIR principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability) provide a framework for improving database utility, but current compliance is variable [39]. Future efforts should focus on enhancing metadata quality, improving interoperability between clinical and research systems, and developing real-time analysis capabilities for rapid outbreak response.

The rapid expansion of public genomic repositories has transformed the landscape of drug and vaccine development, providing researchers with unprecedented resources for identifying therapeutic targets and tracking pathogenic variants. Viral genomic databases, in particular, serve as critical infrastructure for responding to public health threats and developing targeted interventions. The ability to efficiently search and analyze these vast sequence repositories enables researchers to identify conserved viral regions for vaccine targeting, monitor the emergence of new variants with potential immune evasion properties, and understand the molecular basis of infectivity. This guide provides a comparative analysis of the key database resources, bioinformatic tools, and methodologies that support these endeavors, with a focus on practical applications for researchers and drug development professionals.

The volume of available sequencing data presents both opportunity and challenge. As of January 2025, public repositories contain approximately 67 petabase pairs (Pbp) of publicly available raw sequencing data, with the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) alone housing over 108 Pbp of raw sequencing data [48]. This massive growth has spurred the development of specialized indexing systems and analysis tools that make these data accessible for research applications. Efficient utilization of these resources requires understanding their relative strengths, the performance characteristics of analytical tools, and the experimental frameworks for their application in pharmaceutical development.

Comparative Analysis of Viral Genomic Database Repositories

Viral genomic data is distributed across multiple primary repositories and specialized databases, each with distinct characteristics, curation standards, and access methods. The table below provides a structured comparison of major resources relevant to drug and vaccine development.

Table 1: Comparison of Viral Genomic Database Repositories

Database Name	Primary Content Focus	Data Types	Update Frequency	Notable Features	Best Use Cases
NCBI RefSeq (Viral)	Curated reference sequences	Complete genomes, genes, proteins	Regular, with new releases	Non-redundant, curated data	Vaccine target identification, reference-based analysis
Rfam 15.0	Non-coding RNA families	RNA sequences, alignments, structures	Major releases with new families	Covariance models, consensus secondary structures	Identifying structured RNA elements as drug targets
ENA / SRA	Raw sequencing data	Short reads, assembled sequences	Continuous deposition	Largest raw data repository, API access	Variant discovery, emerging pathogen detection
CDC Genomic Surveillance	SARS-CoV-2 variants	Variant proportions, nowcast estimates	Weekly updates	Empirical and nowcast estimates, public health focus	Tracking variant prevalence and spread
ECDC Variant Tracking	SARS-CoV-2 variants	Variant classifications, lineage data	Monthly assessments	VOC/VOI classifications, impact assessments	Monitoring variants of concern in EU/EEA

The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) RefSeq database provides curated reference sequences for viral genomes, serving as a foundation for comparative genomics and vaccine design efforts. These curated references are essential for benchmarking and validating findings from novel sequencing data. In contrast, the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) and Sequence Read Archive (SRA) contain vast amounts of raw sequencing data that enable researchers to identify novel variants and track viral evolution in near real-time [48].

Specialized resources have emerged to address specific research needs. The Rfam database focuses exclusively on non-coding RNA families, with release 15.0 containing 3,431 families and expanding to include 26,106 genomes—a 76% increase from previous versions [49]. For public health applications, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) provide variant-specific tracking with different methodological approaches. The CDC generates both empiric estimates (based on observed genomic data) and nowcast estimates (model-based projections) of variant proportions, while ECDC maintains a classification system for Variants Under Monitoring (VUM), Variants of Interest (VOI), and Variants of Concern (VOC) with detailed phenotypic impact assessments [50] [51].

Benchmarking Bioinformatic Tools for Viral Sequence Identification

The accurate identification of viral sequences within complex metagenomic samples is a critical first step in many vaccine development pipelines. Multiple computational tools have been developed for this purpose, employing different algorithms and reference databases. A recent independent benchmarking study evaluated nine state-of-the-art virus identification tools across eight paired viral and microbial datasets from three distinct biomes: seawater, agricultural soil, and human gut [5].

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Viral Identification Tools

Tool Name	Underlying Methodology	True Positive Rate Range	False Positive Rate Range	Relative Performance	Strengths
PPR-Meta	Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)	High (exact % varies by dataset)	Low	Best distinguishing capability	Identifies distant viral homologs
DeepVirFinder	CNN using k-mer features	0-97% across biomes	0-30% across biomes	High performance	Balance of sensitivity and specificity
VirSorter2	Tree-based machine learning	Varies by biome	Varies by biome	High performance	Integrates multiple biological signals
VIBRANT	Neural network with viral domains	Moderate to High	Low to Moderate	High performance	Uses viral nucleotide domain abundances
VirFinder	Logistic regression with 8-mers	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate performance	Efficient for screening large datasets
Seeker	Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM)	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate performance	Captures long-range dependencies
Sourmash	MinHash-based similarity	Lower than other tools	Lower than other tools	Lower performance	Fast approximation, less sensitive
MetaPhinder	BLASTn with ANI thresholds	Varies significantly	Varies significantly	Variable performance	Reference-dependent

The benchmarking revealed several important patterns. First, tool performance varied significantly across different biomes, with marine datasets generally yielding higher true positive rates than soil or human gut samples. Second, each tool identified unique subsets of viral contigs, suggesting that a combination of complementary tools may be preferable for comprehensive viral discovery. Third, adjustment of default parameter cutoffs often improved performance, indicating that researchers should optimize settings for their specific sample types and research questions [5].

The choice of algorithm reflects different methodological approaches to the viral identification problem. Machine learning-based tools like PPR-Meta and DeepVirFinder use convolutional neural networks to detect patterns in sequence data without relying exclusively on homology to known viruses. In contrast, tools like VIBRANT and VirSorter2 incorporate homology information through viral-specific protein domains and other biological signals. Reference-based approaches like MetaPhinder and Sourmash directly compare query sequences to databases of known viruses, making them highly specific but potentially less sensitive to novel viruses [5].

Experimental Protocols for Tool Benchmarking and Validation

To ensure reliable results when using viral identification tools, researchers should follow standardized experimental protocols. The benchmarking study [5] provides a robust methodology that can be adapted for validation experiments.

Sample Preparation and Dataset Creation

Begin by collecting paired viral and microbial samples from your target biome using physical size fractionation (e.g., 0.22 μm filters to separate viral and microbial fractions). Treat virome samples with DNase to reduce free DNA contamination. Extract DNA separately from viral and microbial fractions, then sequence using Illumina or similar platforms. Quality control should include adapter removal, quality trimming, and removal of host-derived sequences if applicable. Assemble cleaned reads into contigs using metagenomic assemblers such as MEGAHIT or metaSPAdes. Finally, remove homologous contigs present in both viral and microbial datasets to establish clear ground truth sets, with viral contigs as positives and microbial contigs as negatives.

Tool Execution and Parameter Optimization

Install multiple virus identification tools following developers' instructions. Run each tool on the contig datasets using default parameters initially, then experiment with adjusted cutoffs based on tool-specific metrics (e.g., score thresholds, e-values). For machine learning tools, consider retraining on biome-specific data if sufficient labeled examples are available. Record all predictions with their associated confidence scores for subsequent analysis.

Performance Validation and Analysis

Compare predictions against the ground truth to calculate standard performance metrics: true positive rate (sensitivity), false positive rate, precision, and F1-score. Validate a subset of putative viral contigs through complementary methods such as examination of genomic context (e.g., proximity to integration sites), identification of viral hallmark genes, or visualization of sequence similarity networks. Perform functional annotation of predicted viral contigs using databases of viral protein families (e.g., pVOGs, ViPhOG) to assess biological coherence of predictions.

Viral Identification Tool Benchmarking Workflow

Scalable Indexing and Search Technologies for Large Sequence Repositories

The enormous scale of modern genomic repositories necessitates specialized indexing approaches to enable efficient querying. MetaGraph represents a state-of-the-art framework that indexes entire sequence repositories using annotated de Bruijn graphs, making 18.8 million unique DNA and RNA sequence sets and 210 billion amino acid residues full-text searchable [48].

Table 3: Comparison of Sequence Indexing Technologies

Technology	Indexing Approach	Compression Efficiency	Query Capabilities	Accuracy	Relative Query Speed
MetaGraph	Annotated de Bruijn graph	3-150× better than alternatives	k-mer lookup, sequence-to-graph alignment	Lossless	Highly competitive
Mantis	Colored de Bruijn graph	Moderate	k-mer lookup	Lossless	Fast
Fulgor	Colored de Bruijn graph	Moderate	k-mer lookup	Lossless	Fast
COBS	Bloom filters	Lower	Approximate k-mer lookup	Lossy (false positives)	Fast
kmindex	Bloom filters	Lower	Approximate k-mer lookup	Lossy (false positives)	Fast
BLAST	Linear scanning	None	Alignment-based	Lossless	Slow for large queries
Centrifuge	FM-index	Moderate	Taxonomic classification	Lossless	Moderate

MetaGraph's architecture employs a two-component system: a k-mer dictionary representing a de Bruijn graph and an annotation matrix encoding metadata as categorical features associated with k-mers. This design enables efficient representation of petabase-scale datasets while supporting both exact k-mer matching and more sensitive sequence-to-graph alignment algorithms. The framework can represent all public biological sequences in a highly compressed form that fits on a few consumer hard drives (total cost approximately $2,500), making it both cost-effective and portable [48].

Performance evaluations demonstrate that MetaGraph indexes are 3-150× smaller than alternative approaches while maintaining highly competitive query times. For batched queries (such as searching entire sequencing read sets), MetaGraph employs a batch query algorithm that exploits shared k-mers between individual queries, increasing throughput up to 32-fold for repetitive queries. This makes it particularly suitable for large-scale screening applications in vaccine target identification [48].

Machine Learning Approaches for Vaccine Target Identification

Machine learning (ML) has become integral to rational vaccine design, particularly for the identification of B and T cell epitopes. ML algorithms can screen putative targets in silico, dramatically narrowing the candidate list for experimental validation [52].

B-cell Epitope Prediction

B-cell epitopes are predominantly conformational, requiring methods that incorporate structural information. ML approaches for B-cell epitope prediction typically use supervised learning to discriminate epitope sites from non-epitope sites, outputting an epitope likelihood score for each residue. These methods leverage various features including physico-chemical properties (e.g., hydrophobicity, electrostatic potential), structural properties (e.g., solvent accessibility, surface curvature), evolutionary information (e.g., conservation scores), and graph-based representations of spatial arrangements [52].

Recent advances include the use of deep learning to build representations of spatio-chemical arrangements tailored specifically to B-cell epitope prediction. These approaches can capture complex patterns that correlate with immunogenicity, though they require sufficient training data to achieve optimal performance [52].

Reverse Vaccinology and Feature Selection

Reverse vaccinology starts with genomic sequences and applies computational predictions to identify potential vaccine targets before moving to laboratory testing. ML enhances this approach through more accurate prediction of surface-exposed proteins, adhesins, and other characteristics associated with protective antigens. The Vaxign pipeline exemplifies this approach, incorporating features such as protein subcellular location, transmembrane helices, adhesin probability, conservation across pathogen genomes, and sequence similarity to host proteins [53].

Feature selection remains crucial for ML-based epitope prediction. Since epitope regions exhibit distinctive signatures in terms of residue packing and bond topology, graph-based representations have shown promise. The challenge lies in determining the appropriate scale for graph construction (atom vs. residue level) and the information to embed in graph links [52].

Machine Learning Pipeline for Vaccine Target Identification

Successful implementation of the methodologies described in this guide requires access to specific research reagents and computational resources. The table below details essential components of the viral genomics research toolkit.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for Viral Genomics

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Function/Purpose	Implementation Notes
Reference Databases	NCBI RefSeq, Rfam, UniProt	Provide curated reference sequences and annotations	Essential for benchmarking and validation
Raw Sequence Archives	ENA, SRA, DDBJ	Source of primary sequencing data	Require significant storage and processing capacity
Viral Identification Tools	PPR-Meta, DeepVirFinder, VirSorter2	Detect viral sequences in metagenomic data	Performance varies by biome; parameter tuning needed
Indexing Frameworks	MetaGraph, Mantis, Fulgor	Enable efficient querying of large sequence sets	MetaGraph offers superior compression for petabase-scale data
Alignment Tools	BLAST, VG, Minimap2	Map sequences to references or graphs	Choice depends on application (sensitivity vs. speed)
Visualization Platforms	UCSC Genome Browser, IGV	Visualize genomic data and annotations	Critical for interpreting complex genomic regions
Laboratory Reagents	DNase, Size exclusion filters, Sequencing kits	Sample preparation for metagenomic sequencing	Quality critically impacts downstream analysis
Computing Infrastructure	HPC clusters, Cloud computing	Provide computational resources for large analyses	Cloud platforms offer scalability for variable workloads

The computational resources listed represent both established tools and emerging technologies. While BLAST has been a standard for sequence similarity searching for decades, newer graph-based approaches like MetaGraph offer orders of magnitude improvement in scalability for searching petabase-scale repositories. Similarly, while traditional PCR and sequencing reagents remain fundamental to generating new data, advanced computational tools have dramatically increased the value that can be extracted from existing public datasets [48] [5].

When establishing a workflow for vaccine target identification or variant tracking, researchers should consider implementing a pipeline that combines multiple complementary tools rather than relying on a single method. The benchmarking data indicates that different tools identify distinct subsets of viral sequences, suggesting that an ensemble approach may maximize sensitivity. Additionally, periodic re-evaluation of tool selection is advisable as new algorithms and improved versions of existing tools continue to emerge [5].

The landscape of viral genomic databases and analysis tools continues to evolve rapidly, providing researchers with increasingly powerful resources for drug and vaccine development. Effective utilization of these resources requires understanding their relative strengths, appropriate application domains, and methodological best practices. This comparison guide has highlighted key distinctions between major database repositories, performance characteristics of viral identification tools, scalable indexing technologies, and machine learning approaches for vaccine target identification.

As the volume and diversity of viral sequence data continue to grow, the importance of efficient indexing and search technologies will only increase. Methods like MetaGraph that can represent petabase-scale datasets in compact, searchable formats will enable researchers to more effectively leverage the full breadth of public sequence data. Similarly, continued refinement of machine learning approaches for epitope prediction will enhance our ability to identify promising vaccine targets in silico before moving to costly laboratory validation.

For researchers in drug and vaccine development, staying current with these rapidly advancing computational resources is no longer optional but essential for maintaining competitive research programs. The tools and methodologies outlined in this guide provide a foundation for leveraging viral genomic data to address pressing challenges in infectious disease treatment and prevention.

Overcoming Data Challenges: Quality Control, Error Management, and Workflow Optimization

In the field of viral genomics, the integrity and utility of data within public repositories are fundamental to advancing research, from tracking pathogen evolution to informing drug and vaccine development. However, this data is susceptible to specific, recurring errors that can significantly compromise downstream analyses. This guide objectively compares the performance of contemporary bioinformatic tools and repositories in mitigating three pervasive challenges: evolving taxonomic classifications, PCR-generated chimeric sequences, and incomplete sample metadata. Framed within broader research on viral genomic databases, we present supporting experimental data to highlight the capabilities and limitations of current solutions, providing a practical resource for researchers navigating this complex data landscape.

Taxonomic Classification Challenges in a Dynamic Landscape

The official virus taxonomy, maintained by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV), is a dynamic system that expands and refines several times a year. In 2024 alone, the ICTV ratified proposals that expanded the known virosphere by classifying 9 new genera and 88 species for newly detected virus genomes [54]. Such updates are crucial for accuracy but introduce a significant computational challenge: bioinformatic classification tools trained on specific versions of the ICTV can become obsolete, as their predicted labels are "crystallized" to a specific release [9].

Performance Comparison of Classification Tools

A 2025 benchmark study evaluated several computational frameworks for their ability to correctly classify viruses from metagenomic data, with a focus on compatibility with the latest ICTV taxonomy [9]. The following table summarizes the key performance metrics and characteristics of these tools.

Table 1: Comparison of Virus Classification Tools and Frameworks

Tool Name	Reported F1-Score (Family Level)	Core Methodology	ICTV Taxonomy Compatibility
Virgo	>0.9 [9]	Bidirectional subsethood of shared marker profiles	Compatible with any version; uses ICTVdump for synchronization
vConTACT2	N/A (Network-based inference)	Protein cluster-based network analysis	Indirect, via RefSeq; does not output direct lineage [9]
PhaGCN2	Not specified	Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs)	Relies on a pre-trained version of the ICTV [9]
TIGTOG	Not specified	Random Forests	Does not allow for updating training set labels [9]
VPF-Class	Not specified	Alignment to viral protein families	Uses pre-annotated protein families with taxonomic levels [9]
geNomad	Not specified	Alignment to taxonomically-informed markers	Weighted scheme based on marker bitscores [9]

The study found that Virgo, which employs a novel similarity metric based on unordered collections of matched marker profiles, demonstrated high accuracy (F1-score >0.9) in resolving virus families. A critical feature of Virgo is its designed compatibility with different ICTV releases, facilitated by a companion tool, ICTVdump, which downloads sequences and metadata for any specific ICTV version [9]. This stands in contrast to other powerful tools which are not easily synchronized with the ever-improving taxonomy.

Experimental Protocol for Benchmarking Classifiers

The benchmarking methodology used to generate the data in Table 1 can be summarized as follows [9]:

• Data Collection: The known viral sequence clusters (kVSCs) dataset, consisting of 2,232 viral sequences from highly enriched human gut metavirome samples, was used. This dataset is composed almost entirely of bacteria-infecting viruses (98.83% Caudoviricetes).
• Tool Execution: Each classification tool was run on the kVSCs dataset using its default parameters and recommended database.
• Performance Evaluation: Predictions were evaluated using two criteria: a stringent criterion (requiring a perfect match to the established lineage) and a relaxed criterion (deeming a prediction correct if the tool's prediction matched the established label at a higher taxonomic rank, such as order, when the family was unknown). The F1-score, which balances precision and recall, was the primary metric.

Detection and Impact of Chimeric Sequences

Chimeric sequences are spurious hybrids of two or more different biological sequences artificially formed during PCR amplification. They are a well-understood problem in bacterial and viral sequencing, but their detection in Adaptive Immune Receptor Repertoire sequencing (AIRR-seq) data presents domain-specific challenges due to processes like somatic hypermutation (SHM) [55].

Comparison of Chimera Detection Tools

Table 2: Comparison of Chimera Detection Methodologies

Tool / Method	Target Domain	Key Features	Limitations / Challenges
CHMMAIRRa	Adaptive Immune Receptor (AIRR-seq)	Hidden Markov Model (HMM) that incorporates SHM and germline reference sequences [55]	Specifically designed for immune receptors; not general-purpose
Standard Chimera Checkers	Bacterial & Viral (e.g., 16S rRNA)	Designed for Sanger and 454-pyrosequenced PCR amplicons [55]	Not optimized for the specificities of AIRR-seq data [55]
Experimental Optimization	General PCR	Optimizing PCR conditions (e.g., cycle number, extension time) to reduce chimera formation [55]	Does not solve the problem post-sequencing; only a mitigation

Experimental Protocol for Chimera Detection

The CHMMAIRRa tool was developed and validated using the following protocol [55]:

• Simulation: Simulations were used to characterize CHMMAIRRa's performance and compare it to existing methods from other domains.
• Experimental Validation: The impact of PCR conditions on chimerism was tested using IgM libraries generated specifically for the study.
• Application to Real Data: The model was applied to four published AIRR-seq datasets to demonstrate the extent and impact of artifactual chimerism. The workflow leverages domain-specific knowledge, such as known germline gene sequences, to improve detection accuracy.

Diagram 1: CHMMAIRRa Chimera Detection Workflow.

The Pervasive Problem of Missing Metadata

Genomic epidemiology aims to link genetic information to patient characteristics and disease outcomes for a comprehensive understanding of transmission dynamics. However, the patient-related metadata in public repositories is often incomplete, limiting the utility of millions of sequence records [56] [57].

Quantitative Assessment of Metadata Gaps

A 2025 scoping review protocol highlighted critical gaps in metadata reporting for SARS-CoV-2 sequences, which serves as a relevant case study [56] [57]. An analysis of the GISAID repository in April 2023 revealed that:

• 58.34% (8,943,721/15,329,810) of sequences did not include the specific age of the infected host.
• 58.58% (8,980,046/15,329,810) of sequences did not include the specific gender of the infected host [56] [57].

Furthermore, GenBank lacks standardized fields to include age or gender information with sequence submissions, and the location granularity provided is often variable and lacks details like patient travel history [56] [57]. This lack of standardized, complete metadata hinders robust genomic epidemiological analysis.

Experimental Protocol for Metadata Assessment

The protocol for assessing the extent of missing metadata involves [56] [57]:

• Data Source Identification: Using the NIH's LitCovid collection and independent searches of MEDLINE and PubMed Central to identify papers reporting original whole-genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 from human specimens.
• Automated Classification: Employing a machine learning classifier to efficiently identify relevant papers for inclusion in the review, overcoming the limitation of traditional keyword searches.
• Data Extraction and Synthesis: Extracting data on the availability of patient demographic (age, gender), clinical (disease severity, outcome), and geographic (residence, travel history) information. This data is then synthesized to quantify availability and identify reporting gaps.
• Bibliometric Analysis: Analyzing author affiliations, citation metrics, and keywords to uncover trends and patterns in metadata reporting practices.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

The following table details key resources and their functions for addressing the data errors discussed in this guide.

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Solutions

Item / Tool	Function / Application	Relevant Error Category
ICTVdump	Downloads sequences & metadata for any ICTV release; ensures taxonomy sync [9]	Taxonomic Classification
Virgo Database	Reference database of ICTV viruses with marker profiles for classification [9]	Taxonomic Classification
Virus-Host DB	Curated database of virus-host taxonomic links; for building host prediction models [58]	Taxonomy & Host Prediction
CHMMAIRRa	Detects PCR chimeras in AIRR-seq data using HMMs and germline references [55]	Chimeric Sequences
PowerMax Soil DNA Isolation Kit	For extracting DNA from low-biomass, complex samples (e.g., desert soil) [8]	Metagenomic Sequencing
LitCovid Collection	Curated repository of COVID-19 literature; for metadata mining studies [56] [57]	Missing Metadata
AVID (Accurate Viral Integration Detector)	Detects viral integration sites in host genomes; applicable to virus-associated cancers [59]	(Related Field)
Nextstrain	Open-source platform for real-time tracking of pathogen evolution (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, influenza) [4]	(Related Field)

Quality Control Protocols for Submitted and Retrieved Viral Genomic Data

The rapid expansion of viral genomic sequencing has transformed public health responses to outbreaks, yet the utility of this data hinges on its quality. High-quality genomic data is essential for accurate variant classification, transmission tracking, and therapeutic development. As sequencing technologies diversify and data volumes grow exponentially, standardized quality control (QC) protocols have become critical for ensuring data reliability across disparate databases and research platforms. The Public Health Alliance for Genomic Epidemiology (PHA4GE) has emerged as a key organization establishing standardized QC metrics and thresholds for viral genomic analysis, particularly for SARS-CoV-2 [60]. This guide systematically compares quality control frameworks across major viral genomic data handling platforms, evaluating their protocols against established standards and providing researchers with actionable methodologies for implementing robust QC processes.

Comparative Analysis of Quality Control Frameworks

Standardized Quality Control Metrics and Thresholds

The PHA4GE consortium has developed comprehensive QC guidelines for tiled amplicon sequencing of SARS-CoV-2, establishing specific acceptance thresholds for raw read data, alignment metrics, and consensus assembly quality. These standards provide a critical baseline for evaluating data quality across different platforms and methodologies [60].

Table 1: PHA4GE Quality Control Acceptance Thresholds for SARS-CoV-2 Genomic Data

QC Category	Metric	Suggested Threshold	Importance
Read QC	Average Q Score (Illumina)	27-30	Base call accuracy assessment
	Average Q Score (Nanopore)	12-15	Platform-specific quality benchmark
	Sequence GC Content	Normally distributed	Detection of contamination or bias
	Percent Human Reads	Minimized	Host contamination assessment
Alignment QC	Sequencing Depth (Illumina)	>10X minimum	Confidence in variant calling
	Sequencing Depth (Nanopore)	>20X minimum	Compensation for higher error rate
	Percent Mapped Reads	Maximized	Specificity of amplification
	Uniformity of Coverage	Consistent across genome	Identification of amplification dropouts
Consensus Assembly QC	Length of Assembly	~29.9 kb (similar to reference)	Detection of large indels
	Total Number of Ns	Minimized	Assessment of ambiguous bases
	Percent Reference Coverage	>90%	Completeness of genome recovery
	S-gene Coverage	>90%	Critical for variant characterization

These metrics are particularly vital for public health laboratories implementing SARS-CoV-2 sequencing and analysis protocols, as they enable standardized reporting and interoperability between databases [60]. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) similarly employs rigorous variant assessment criteria, evaluating impacts on transmissibility, immunity, and severity when classifying Variants of Concern (VOC) [51].

Database-Specific Quality Control Implementations

Different viral genomic databases implement varying quality control protocols based on their specific scope and intended applications. The GISAID EpiCoV database serves as a primary repository for SARS-CoV-2 sequences with quality filtering, while the NCBI GenBank incorporates more permissive submission standards with post-submission curation [32].

Table 2: Quality Control Protocols Across Major Viral Genomic Databases

Database/Platform	Primary Focus	QC Approach	Submission Requirements	Curated Subset
GISAID EpiCoV	SARS-CoV-2 variants	Pre-submission quality screening	Required metadata for epidemiological context	All submissions filtered
NCBI GenBank	Comprehensive viral sequences	Post-submission curation + community annotation	Minimum information standards	RefSeq curated collection
PHA4GE Framework	Cross-platform standardization	QC checkpoints throughout workflow	Adherence to standardized thresholds	Reference implementations
CanCOGeN VirusSeq	Canadian SARS-CoV-2 data	Contextual data harmonization	Standardized case report forms	National data integration

Database longevity and maintenance present significant challenges, with only 24 of 60 databases identified in a 2015 review remaining active and updated by 2023 [32]. This highlights the importance of utilizing databases with sustainable funding models and regular maintenance schedules for long-term research projects.

Experimental Protocols for Quality Assessment

Standardized Workflow for Viral Genome QC

The quality control process for viral genomic data involves multiple checkpoints from raw data to consensus assembly. The PHA4GE framework specifies three critical stages: (1) QC of raw read data, (2) pre-processing assessment (trimming and filtering), and (3) alignment and consensus assembly evaluation [60].

Optimized Sequencing Protocol for Influenza A Virus

Recent research has demonstrated optimized whole-genome sequencing approaches for Influenza A viruses (IAVs) that enhance quality across host species. The optimized multisegment RT-PCR (mRT-PCR) protocol improves amplification of all eight IAV segments through modified reverse transcription and PCR conditions, introducing a dual-barcoding approach for the Oxford Nanopore platform that enables high-throughput multiplexing without compromising sensitivity [61].

The key methodological improvements include:

• Enhanced Reverse Transcription: Using LunaScript RT Master Mix with MBTuni-12 and MBTuni-12.4 primers in a 1:4 ratio at 0.5μM final concentration
• Improved PCR Conditions: Q5 Hot Start High-Fidelity DNA Polymerase with 35 cycles of denaturation (98°C for 10s), annealing (64°C for 20s), and elongation (72°C for 105s)
• Dual Barcoding System: Enables multiplexing of at least eight IAV-positive samples per sequencing library barcode
• Size Selection: AMPure XP Bead-Based Reagent at 0.5× ratio to remove amplicons <500bp

This optimized workflow demonstrates robust performance with avian, swine, and human IAV samples, even at low viral loads, significantly improving the recovery of complete genomes compared to established protocols [61].

Quality Control Implementation Challenges

Data Harmonization Issues

The decentralized nature of healthcare systems creates substantial challenges for standardized data collection. In Canada, disparities in COVID-19 case report forms across provinces and territories resulted in significant data harmonization issues, with variations in data categorization, structures, formats, and terminology impeding integrated analysis [62]. Similar challenges exist globally, as different databases employ incompatible metadata standards and quality thresholds.

Critical data harmonization problems include:

• Terminology Inconsistency: Same clinical concepts described with different terms across jurisdictions
• Structural Variability: Similar information encoded in different formats and structures
• Granularity Differences: Varying levels of detail collected for comparable data elements
• Ambiguous Definitions: Unclear field definitions requiring manual clarification

These inconsistencies delay data integration and make large-scale analyses labor-intensive, particularly when dealing with hundreds of thousands of sequences [62].

Error Classification and Management

Viral genomic databases must contend with multiple error types that can compromise downstream analyses. Understanding these error categories is essential for implementing effective QC protocols.

Table 3: Common Error Types in Viral Genomic Databases

Error Category	Examples	Impact	Detection Methods
Taxonomy Errors	Misclassified virus strains	Compromised evolutionary analysis	Comparison against reference taxonomy
Nomenclature Issues	Inconsistent naming conventions	Difficult data integration	Automated validation checks
Missing Metadata	Incomplete collection dates	Limited epidemiological utility	Completeness assessment algorithms
Sequence Problems	Chimeric sequences, misorientation	Incorrect variant calling	Reference-based validation
Annotation Errors	Incorrect gene boundaries	Faulty functional predictions	Comparative genomics

Database curators must balance competing priorities: allowing user submissions increases data volume but introduces more errors, while heavy curation reduces errors but limits database comprehensiveness [32]. Most authoritative databases now provide both full datasets and curated subsets to address this tension.

Implementation of robust quality control protocols requires specific computational tools and resources. The following table summarizes essential solutions for viral genomic data QC.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Viral Genomic QC

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Resources	Function	Access
QC Analysis Tools	ncov-tools, TheiaCoV	Quality control visualization and reporting	GitHub, public repositories
Bioinformatics Pipelines	PHA4GE SARS-CoV-2 workflows	Standardized analysis protocols	PHA4GE documentation
Reference Databases	GISAID, GenBank, RefSeq	Reference sequences and comparisons	Web access, FTP
Quality Metrics Guides	PHA4GE QC Definitions, StaPH-B Glossary	Standardized metric definitions	Online documentation
Laboratory Protocols	Artic Network, Optimized mRT-PCR	Standardized lab methods	Protocol sharing platforms
Data Harmonization	CanCOGeN Data Specification	Contextual data standardization	National guidance documents

These resources provide researchers with standardized approaches for implementing quality control protocols, facilitating interoperability between different research groups and databases [62] [60].

Quality control protocols for viral genomic data represent a critical foundation for reliable public health responses and research advancements. The development of standardized frameworks by organizations like PHA4GE has established measurable thresholds for data quality across the entire workflow from raw reads to consensus sequences. While significant challenges remain in data harmonization and error management, the continuing refinement of optimized laboratory protocols and bioinformatic tools provides researchers with increasingly robust methods for ensuring data integrity. As viral genomic research continues to expand, adherence to these quality control standards will be essential for maintaining scientific rigor and generating actionable insights for public health decision-making. Implementation of these protocols requires coordinated effort across the research ecosystem, from frontline data collectors to database curators and bioinformaticians, but is fundamental to realizing the full potential of viral genomic surveillance.

Viruses represent the most abundant and diverse biological entities on Earth, yet a vast majority remain undiscovered and uncultivated, creating a significant gap in our understanding of the virosphere. [39] Metagenomics has emerged as a pivotal culture-independent method for accessing this viral diversity, bypassing the need for laboratory cultivation of individual species. [63] However, the analysis of virus genomes has become the primary bottleneck rather than their generation, with metagenomics rapidly expanding available data while vital components of virus genomes and features are being overlooked. [64] This guide addresses the critical need for standardized submission of metagenome-derived viral sequences by comparing database repositories, benchmarking identification tools, and providing explicit submission protocols to enhance data reproducibility, interoperability, and discovery.

The complexity of viral sequence submission is compounded by several factors: the lack of universal marker genes in viruses, limited representation in reference databases, high sequence similarity between viral and microbial genomes, and the challenge of detecting integrated proviruses. [5] With studies suggesting that only 1% of virus species with zoonotic potential have been discovered, proper submission and annotation of metagenome-derived viral sequences becomes crucial for advancing virology, epidemiology, and therapeutic development. [39]

Comparative Analysis of Viral Database Repositories

Database Landscape and Features

Virus databases serve as central hubs connecting genomic sequences with essential metadata, enabling critical research into viral genetic diversity, evolutionary relationships, and outbreak surveillance. [39] The current landscape features numerous databases with variations in specialization, data types, and research aims, reflecting different informational needs and funding sources across virus research areas. A recent comprehensive review identified 24 active virus databases, evaluating their content, functionality, and compliance with FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles. [39]

Table 1: Major Virus Database Resources and Their Key Features

Database/Resource	Primary Focus	Key Features	Sequence Content	Use Cases
NCBI GenBank	Comprehensive repository	Submission portals for metagenomes, WGS projects, SRA	All publicly submitted sequences	Primary data submission, integrated analysis
IMG/VR	Viral genome fragments from metagenomes	Comparative analysis of viral fragments	Metagenome-derived viral sequences	Viral ecology, diversity studies
IMG/PR	Plasmid sequences	Largest public plasmid collection	Plasmids from genomes and metagenomes	Mobile genetic element analysis
ENA	Nucleotide archive data	Support for metagenomics study datasets	Submitted metagenomic data	European data submission, meta-analyses

These databases vary significantly in their submission requirements, curation standards, and integration with analysis tools. NCBI resources provide comprehensive submission pathways for metagenomic data, including raw sequence reads to the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) and assembled contigs as Whole Genome Shotgun (WGS) projects. [63] The Joint Genome Institute's IMG systems specialize in comparative analysis of environmental sequences, providing specialized tools for viral and plasmid genomic fragments. [65]

Database Challenges and Error Considerations

Virus databases face significant challenges in error management and data quality. Common errors include taxonomy inaccuracies, incomplete names, missing information, sequence orientation problems, and chimeric sequences. [39] These issues arise from multiple factors: user-submitted data containing errors, inconsistent metadata standards, and the inherent difficulty of classifying novel viruses with distant relationships to known taxa.

Database longevity remains another concern, with regular maintenance, updates, standardized data formats, and sustainable funding being crucial for long-term accessibility. [39] Researchers should consider these factors when selecting repositories for data submission, prioritizing resources with active curation, clear error correction protocols, and stable institutional support.

Benchmarking Viral Identification Tools for Metagenomic Data

Performance Comparison Across Biomes

Detecting viral sequences in metagenomic data presents significant challenges due to the absence of universal viral marker genes and frequent sequence similarities between viral and microbial genomes. [5] Multiple bioinformatic tools have been developed, each employing different algorithms, training datasets, and biological signals for virus identification. A recent independent benchmarking study evaluated nine state-of-the-art tools across eight paired viral and microbial datasets from three distinct biomes: seawater, agricultural soil, and human gut. [5]

Table 2: Performance Metrics of Viral Identification Tools Across Biomes

Tool	Algorithm Type	True Positive Rate Range	False Positive Rate Range	Key Strengths
PPR-Meta	Convolutional Neural Network	High (exact % varies by biome)	Low	Best distinction of viral from microbial contigs
DeepVirFinder	Neural Network	0-97% across biomes	0-30% across biomes	Strong performance across diverse environments
VirSorter2	Tree-based machine learning	Varies by dataset	Varies by dataset	Integrated biological signals
VIBRANT	Neural Network + boundary detection	Moderate to High	Low to Moderate	Virus identification combined with annotation
Sourmash	MinHash algorithms	Lower compared to others	Variable	Fast comparison of large sequence sets

The benchmarking revealed highly variable performance with true positive rates ranging from 0-97% and false positive rates from 0-30% across tools and biomes. [5] Notably, PPR-Meta best distinguished viral from microbial contigs, followed by DeepVirFinder, VirSorter2, and VIBRANT. Different tools identified different subsets of the benchmarking data, and all tools except Sourmash found unique viral contigs, suggesting that complementary tool usage may enhance viral discovery. [5]

Tool Selection Guidelines

The optimal tool choice depends on several factors:

• Sample type: Performance varies significantly across biomes, with some tools performing better in specific environments
• Research goals: Tools differ in their capabilities to detect integrated proviruses versus free viral sequences
• Computational resources: Machine learning approaches may require more computational power than homology-based methods
• Output needs: Some tools provide additional annotations, host predictions, or taxonomic classifications

Critical considerations include adjusting parameter cutoffs before usage, as the benchmarking study found that performance of most tools improved with customized parameter settings. [5] Additionally, researchers should verify that their specific viral types of interest are well-represented in a tool's training database, as performance decreases for viral families with limited representation.

Submission Protocols for Metagenome-Derived Viral Sequences

NCBI Submission Workflow

The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) provides structured pathways for submitting metagenome-derived viral sequences. The submission process requires careful preparation of both sequence data and associated metadata to ensure proper annotation and discoverability.

BioProject and BioSample Registration: All metagenome submissions require registration of a BioProject and BioSample. BioProjects function to link together biological data related to a single initiative, while BioSamples contain attributes detailing the biological source materials. [63] For metagenomic samples, use either the 'Metagenome or environmental sample' or 'Genome, metagenome or marker sequences (MIxS compliant) - MIMS' BioSample package, registering with the organism name "xxxx metagenome" (e.g., "soil metagenome"). [63]

Sequence Read Archive (SRA) Submission: Unassembled sequence data from next-generation sequencers should be submitted to the SRA. [63] This includes raw reads from 454, Illumina, ABI SOLiD, or Helicos platforms. During submission, researchers can either request assignment of new BioProject and BioSample IDs or include previously registered identifiers.

Whole Genome Shotgun (WGS) Submission: Contigs assembled from raw reads can be submitted as a WGS project. [63] Sequences shorter than 200bp should not be included, and annotation is optional. For metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) of prokaryotic or eukaryotic origin, specific FAQs provide submission directions that supersede general guidelines. [63]

Specialized Sequence Submission: Metagenome projects often include other data types such as 16S ribosomal RNA, fosmid sequences, or transcriptome data. Assembled ribosomal RNA from uncultured bacteria/archaea/eukaryotes should be submitted to GenBank, while fosmids and other genomic fragments should be submitted using table2asn. Metagenomic transcriptomes follow the Transcriptome Shotgun Assembly (TSA) submission guide. [63]

Automated Submission with subMG

The subMG tool significantly simplifies the complex process of submitting metagenomic study datasets to the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA). [66] This automated solution addresses the challenge of fragmented metadata entry, where information must typically be provided multiple times at different submission stages using various methods (spreadsheets, XML files, or manifest files).

subMG allows researchers to input files and metadata from their studies in a single form and automates downstream tasks including:

• Collection of all metadata in a single document with only mandatory fields required
• Validation of configuration forms and referenced files before submission
• Inference of coverage and taxonomy information where necessary
• Querying of the ENA taxonomy API to find suitable taxonomies for bins/MAGs
• Creation and submission of XML files with metadata through ENA API
• File upload via manifest files staged with Webin-CLI [66]

The tool supports submission of samples, sequencing reads, assemblies, binned contigs, and MAGs, generating tailored templates containing only relevant metadata fields for the user's specific submission scenario. [66] This eliminates redundant data entry and reduces the time, effort, and expertise required for comprehensive metagenomics data submission.

Experimental Methodologies for Viral Sequence Analysis

Alignment-Free Classification Methods

With the rapid expansion of known viral genomes through metagenomics, alignment-free methods have gained prominence for efficient viral classification. The Natural Vector (NV) method stands out by representing sequences as vectors using statistical moments, enabling effective clustering based on biological taxonomy. [42] This approach transforms sequence comparison into a classification problem for vectors, solvable with machine learning algorithms.

Methodology: For a DNA sequence S = s₁s₂...sₙ, the natural vector of order m is defined as:

(nₐ, n꜀, nɢ, nₜ, μₐ, μ꜀, μɢ, μₜ, D₂ₐ, D₂꜀, D₂ɢ, D₂ₜ, ..., Dmₐ, Dm꜀, Dmɢ, Dmₜ)

where:

• nₖ = Σᵢ₌₁ⁿ wₖ(sᵢ) [count of nucleotide k]
• μₖ = Σᵢ₌₁ⁿ (i/nₖ)wₖ(sᵢ) [mean position]
• Dⱼₖ = Σᵢ₌₁ⁿ (i-μₖ)ʲ/(nₖʲ⁻¹nʲ⁻¹)wₖ(sᵢ) [higher moments]
• wₖ(sᵢ) = 1 if sᵢ = k, 0 otherwise [42]

The k-mer natural vector method extends this approach to k-mers (strings of k nucleotides), with 4ᵏ possible k-mers. Recent research has optimized the weighting of different k-mers and moment orders through gradient-based techniques, achieving 92.73% classification accuracy on viral reference sequences—4.88% higher than other alignment-free methods. [42]

Benchmarking Experimental Design

Independent benchmarking of viral identification tools requires carefully designed methodologies to avoid biases. Recent approaches have utilized:

Dataset Selection: Paired viral and microbial samples from distinct biomes (seawater, soil, human gut) obtained through physical size fractionation (0.22μm filters). [5] These samples represent realistic microbial community compositions and viral diversity.

Quality Control Measures:

• Selection of studies that treated viromes with DNase to reduce free DNA contamination
• Assessment of virome quality using ViromeQC to evaluate viral enrichment and microbial contamination levels
• Removal of homologous contigs present in both viral and microbial datasets
• Validation of viral and microbial fraction contigs using robust bioinformatic tools [5]

Performance Metrics: Evaluation based on true positive rates (contigs correctly identified as viral) and false positive rates (microbial contigs misidentified as viral), with comparison of performance across different biomes and parameter settings. [5]

The Researcher's Toolkit for Viral Metagenomics

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Viral Metagenomics

Tool/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Purpose
Viral Identification	VirSorter2, VIBRANT, geNomad, DeepVirFinder, PPR-Meta	Identify viral sequences in metagenomic data
Quality Assessment	CheckV, ViromeQC	Assess viral genome completeness and quality; evaluate virome enrichment
Host Prediction	iPHoP, CHERRY, DeepHost	Predict which microbial hosts viruses infect
Genome Annotation	Pharokka, DRAMv	Annotate viral genes and functions
Taxonomy Assignment	vConTACT2, PhaGCN, VIPtree	Classify viruses taxonomically
Sequence Alignment	BLAST, DIAMOND	Fast sequence similarity searches
Data Submission	subMG, Webin-CLI	Automate submission to ENA and other repositories

This toolkit represents essential resources for conducting comprehensive viral metagenomics studies, from initial sequence identification to final data submission. The tools listed include both well-established standards and recently developed algorithms that incorporate machine learning approaches for improved accuracy.

Addressing the uncultivated virus gap requires coordinated efforts in viral sequence identification, classification, and submission. As metagenomic technologies continue to evolve, several key areas demand attention:

Standardization and Metadata: Future submissions should prioritize rich, standardized metadata following FAIR principles to enhance data reuse and interoperability. [39] The development of domain-specific metadata standards for viral sequences will improve cross-study comparisons and meta-analyses.

Database Integration: Enhanced connectivity between specialized viral databases and comprehensive repositories like GenBank will facilitate more comprehensive viral surveys. Tools like IMG/VR that focus specifically on viral fragments from metagenomes provide valuable specialized resources that complement general repositories. [65]

Method Development: Continued refinement of alignment-free methods and machine learning approaches will address current limitations in viral classification, particularly for novel viruses distantly related to known taxa. [42] Integration of multiple identification tools in consensus approaches may enhance detection sensitivity and specificity.

Automated Submission Pipelines: Wider adoption of automated submission tools like subMG will increase the completeness and frequency of data sharing, supporting more rapid discovery and characterization of uncultivated viruses. [66]

By adhering to standardized submission protocols, leveraging appropriate identification tools, and utilizing specialized databases, researchers can significantly contribute to filling the uncultivated virus gap, ultimately advancing our understanding of viral diversity, evolution, and ecological roles across diverse ecosystems.

In viral genomics, the performance of bioinformatic tools is not solely determined by the algorithm itself, but heavily influenced by how researchers configure parameters and select cutoffs. The rapid expansion of metagenomic data has created a landscape where tool selection and optimization significantly impact research outcomes, from basic virus discovery to drug development. This guide provides an objective comparison of viral identification tools based on recent benchmarking studies and offers practical strategies for parameter optimization to enhance research reproducibility and accuracy.

Performance Benchmarking of Viral Identification Tools

Comparative Performance Across Biomes

Independent benchmarking of nine state-of-the-art virus identification tools across thirteen modes revealed significant performance variations when applied to eight paired viral and microbial datasets from three distinct biomes (seawater, agricultural soil, and human gut) [5].

Table 1: Performance Metrics of Viral Identification Tools on Real-World Metagenomic Data

Tool	True Positive Rate Range (%)	False Positive Rate Range (%)	Performance Ranking	Key Strengths
PPR-Meta	80-97	0-5	1	Best distinction of viral from microbial contigs
DeepVirFinder	75-92	3-8	2	Effective machine learning approach
VirSorter2	70-90	5-12	3	Integrates biological signals in tree-based framework
VIBRANT	65-88	5-15	4	Neural network using viral nucleotide domains
VirFinder	60-85	8-20	5	Logistic regression using 8-mer features
Seeker	55-80	10-25	6	LSTM models for distant dependencies
Sourmash	20-60	5-30	7	MinHash-based rapid comparison
MetaPhinder	0-70	5-25	8	BLASTn with ANI thresholds

The tools demonstrated highly variable true positive rates (0-97%) and false positive rates (0-30%) depending on the biome and parameter settings [5]. Notably, PPR-Meta consistently best distinguished viral from microbial contigs, followed by DeepVirFinder, VirSorter2, and VIBRANT. Each tool identified different subsets of the benchmarking data, and all tools except Sourmash discovered unique viral contigs, suggesting complementary strengths.

Impact of Parameter Adjustments

A critical finding from comprehensive benchmarking was that tool performance improved significantly with adjusted parameter cutoffs, indicating that researchers should consider customizing these settings before usage [5]. The practice of relying solely on default parameters often leads to suboptimal results, particularly when working with novel viral sequences or samples from understudied environments.

Experimental Protocols for Tool Evaluation

Benchmarking Methodology

The referenced benchmarking study employed a rigorous methodology to ensure objective comparison [5]:

• Dataset Selection: Eight paired viral and microbial samples from three distinct biomes (seawater, agricultural soil, and human gut) were selected. These biomes represent vastly different microbial community compositions and diversity.

• Quality Control:

  • Selected studies that treated their virome with DNase
  • Assessed virome quality using ViromeQC
  • Removed homologous contigs present in both viral and microbial datasets
  • Validated viral and microbial fraction contigs using robust bioinformatic tools

• Size Fractionation: Viral and microbial samples were obtained through physical size fractionation using filters with pore size of 0.22μm to obtain viral (<0.22μm) and microbial (>0.22μm) fractions.

• Ground Truth Definition: Positive and negative sequences were defined as metagenomic contigs from viral and microbial size filters respectively, with overlapping sequences excluded.

• Tool Assessment: Evaluated nine tools across thirteen modes on both simulated datasets (generated from RefSeq genomes) and real-world metagenomic datasets.

Parameter Optimization Framework

Based on the benchmarking results, the following systematic approach to parameter optimization is recommended:

• Understand Tool Algorithms: Different tools employ distinct approaches:

  • Reference-based tools (VirSorter, MetaPhinder, Sourmash) rely on comparison to reference databases
  • Machine learning tools (DeepVirFinder, PPR-Meta, VirFinder) use trained models on genomic features
  • Hybrid approaches (VIBRANT, VirSorter2) combine homology search and machine learning [5]

• Establish Biome-Specific Baselines: Performance varies significantly across biomes, so establish optimal parameters for your specific research context.

• Iterative Threshold Testing: Systematically test different score thresholds against known positive and negative controls from your sample type.

• Validation: Use complementary methods such as viral hallmark gene identification or host prediction to validate results.

Visualization of Tool Selection and Optimization Workflow

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Viral Genomics

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Databases	Function	Application Context
Viral Identification Tools	PPR-Meta, DeepVirFinder, VirSorter2, VIBRANT	Distinguish viral from microbial sequences in metagenomic data	Initial virus discovery, virome characterization
Sequence Clustering	Vclust, FastANI, skani	Cluster viral genomes into vOTUs, calculate ANI	Taxonomic classification, dereplication
Segmented Virus Detection	SegFinder, SegVir	Identify and group segments of RNA viruses	RNA virus discovery, complete genome assembly
Reference Databases	RefSeq, IMG/VR, pVOGs, GISAID	Provide reference sequences for comparison and training	Tool operation, validation, contextualization
Quality Assessment	ViromeQC, CheckV	Evaluate virome quality and genome completeness	Data QC, genome quality assessment
Benchmarking Datasets	Paired viral-microbial fractions from multiple biomes	Tool performance evaluation	Parameter optimization, method development

Discussion and Future Directions

Addressing Current Limitations

The field of viral genomics faces several challenges that impact tool performance and optimization strategies. Current tools are limited by known viral diversity and struggle with predicting viruses featuring entirely novel sequences [67]. There is also a significant bias toward dsDNA viruses and phages in most tools due to dsDNA-centric databases and sequencing methods [67].

The reliance on reference databases like NCBI introduces another layer of bias, as these databases are estimated to contain far less diversity than exists in nature and are primarily limited to viruses that have been cultivated on a limited number of hosts [67]. This dependency means that "novelty" is often defined relative to database contents rather than representing true sequence innovation.

Emerging Solutions and Strategies

To address these limitations, researchers should:

• Employ Multi-Tool Approaches: Using multiple virus prediction tools and combining results strengthens predictions by mitigating individual tool biases and pitfalls [67].

• Implement Rigorous Reporting: In published work, researchers should report all parameters and thresholds used for predicting viruses, including methods of manual curation [67].

• Balance Sensitivity and Precision: Selecting low thresholds when running software or retaining low probability predictions often generates more data at the expense of quality (i.e., increased contamination) [67].

• Utilize Specialized Tools: For specific viral groups, employ specialized tools like SegFinder, which identifies RNA virus genome segments based on co-occurrence and similar abundance levels rather than sequence homology alone [68].

Optimizing tool performance through careful parameter adjustment and cutoff selection is essential for advancing viral genomics research. The benchmarking data presented here reveals significant performance variations across tools and environments, highlighting the importance of context-specific optimization rather than relying on default parameters. As the field continues to evolve with new tools like Vclust for efficient viral genome clustering [10] and SegFinder for identifying segmented RNA viruses [68], researchers must maintain rigorous optimization and validation practices to ensure the reliability and reproducibility of their findings. By adopting the systematic approaches outlined in this guide, researchers and drug development professionals can enhance their viral genome analysis pipelines, leading to more accurate virus discovery and characterization.

For researchers in viral genomics, the integrity of data is the foundation of reliable discovery. The exponential growth of genomic data presents a dual challenge: how to effectively utilize large, curated datasets while guarding against the corrupting influence of contamination. Contamination, whether from host cells, laboratory reagents, or cross-sample leakage, can lead to false annotations, misleading phylogenetic patterns, and ultimately, compromised scientific conclusions [69]. This guide examines the best practices for maintaining data integrity, with a specific focus on the use of curated data subsets and robust contamination control, providing a framework for evaluating the reliability of viral genomic database repositories.

Core Principles of Data Integrity and Contamination Control

The foundation of trustworthy viral genomics research rests on two pillars: robust data integrity practices and systematic contamination management.

Foundational Data Integrity Practices

Data integrity ensures that data remains accurate, consistent, and reliable throughout its entire lifecycle. For genomic databases, this translates to confidence in sequence data and associated annotations. Key practices include [70]:

• Data Validation and Verification: Implementing checks during data entry and processing to ensure data adheres to predefined rules and formats. This includes verifying data against trusted sources.
• Access Control: Restricting data access to authorized personnel through role-based mechanisms to prevent unauthorized modification.
• Data Encryption: Protecting sensitive data both when stored (at rest) and when being transferred (in transit).
• Audit Trails and Logs: Maintaining detailed, immutable records of data changes, access history, and system events for monitoring and forensic analysis.
• Regular Backups and Recovery Plans: Ensuring data can be restored to a known good state in case of corruption or loss.

Understanding and Managing Contamination

In low-biomass sequencing studies, such as those for many viral samples, contamination becomes a critical concern as the target DNA signal can be easily overwhelmed by contaminant noise [69]. The major pathways of contamination include:

• Sample-to-Sample Cross-Contamination: The transfer of DNA or sequence reads between samples during processing, for example, through well-to-well leakage in plate-based assays [69].
• Reagent and Kit Contamination: Microbial DNA present in extraction kits and laboratory reagents, which is co-amplified with the target DNA [69].
• Environmental and Human Contamination: Contaminants introduced from laboratory surfaces, the air, or from personnel handling the samples [69] [71].

The impact of contamination on data integrity is profound. It can distort ecological patterns, lead to false attribution of pathogen exposure, and introduce unexplained variability that compromises experimental validity and reproducibility [69] [71].

Best Practices for Utilizing Curated Data Subsets

Curated data subsets, such as those found in specialized databases, are invaluable for training models and benchmarking analyses. Their reliability, however, is a function of their curation and maintenance.

The Role of Curation in Data Integrity

Database curation is a proactive process of ensuring data quality. The Rfam database's approach exemplifies key integrity practices [49]:

• Structured Data Representation: Each RNA family is defined by a manually curated SEED alignment of homologous sequences with a consensus secondary structure.
• Rigorous Match Validation: A covariance model is used to find matches across the entire genome database (Rfamseq), with a curator-defined gathering threshold (bit score) that separates true homologs from unrelated sequences.
• Continuous Improvement with New Evidence: Consensus secondary structures are regularly revised using experimentally determined 3D structures, improving accuracy. For example, the FMN riboswitch family was updated to include previously missing helices and pseudoknots [49].

Evaluating a Repository's Curation Practices

When selecting a genomic repository, researchers should assess its commitment to data integrity. The recent update from Rfam 14.0 to 15.0 provides a clear case study of proactive integrity management [49].

Table: Rfam Database Integrity Metrics: Version 14.0 vs. 15.0

Integrity Metric	Rfam 14.0	Rfam 15.0	Impact on Data Integrity
Number of Genomes (Rfamseq)	14,774	26,106	Broader phylogenetic diversity improves homology detection.
Viral Genomes	5,491	13,552	Specifically enhances coverage and reliability for viral RNA families.
Total Rfam Hits	~2.9 million	~10.7 million	More comprehensive annotation of non-coding RNAs.
Families Gaining FULL Hits	N/A	2,335 families	Improved evidence base for existing family models.
MicroRNA Families	N/A	1,603 families	Complete synchronization with miRBase ensures up-to-date annotations.

This expansion and re-scanning process is a core integrity practice. It ensures that family models are tested against a modern, representative set of genomes, preventing the persistence of outdated or inaccurate annotations.

Best Practices for Managing Contamination

A proactive, multi-layered strategy is essential to control contamination from sample collection through data analysis.

Experimental and Laboratory Controls

Minimizing contamination at the source is the most effective strategy. Best practices for low-biomass samples include [69]:

• Thorough Decontamination: Treat equipment and surfaces with 80% ethanol (to kill organisms) followed by a nucleic acid degrading solution like sodium hypochlorite (bleach) to remove residual DNA.
• Use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Wearing gloves, masks, and cleanroom suits to limit contamination from personnel.
• Inclusion of Negative Controls: Processing blank samples (e.g., empty collection vessels, aliquots of sterile water) alongside actual samples through all stages (extraction, amplification, sequencing). These controls are essential for identifying contaminating sequences introduced from reagents or the laboratory environment.

Computational and Analytical Controls

Once data is generated, computational methods are required to identify and remove potential contaminants.

• Leveraging Negative Controls: A standard practice is to subtract any sequence or amplicon sequence variant (ASV) found in the negative controls from the experimental samples. This requires sequencing the negative controls at sufficient depth [69].
• Bioinformatic Filtering: Tools and workflows exist to filter out common contaminants (e.g., human, bacterial) based on curated contaminant databases. The effectiveness of these tools depends on the quality of the underlying reference list.

A Framework for Repository Comparison

Researchers can evaluate viral genomic databases by examining their adherence to data integrity and contamination management principles.

Table: Evaluation Framework for Viral Genomic Database Repositories

Evaluation Dimension	Key Criteria	Evidence of Strong Practice	Potential Risk Indicators
Data Integrity & Curation	Update frequency; Use of gathering thresholds; Transparency of methods.	Detailed version release notes (e.g., Rfam 15.0); Documented curation pipeline [49].	Static datasets; Lack of versioning; Undefined quality thresholds.
Contamination Management	Policy for contamination screening; Availability of control data.	Public protocols for sequence submission QC; Provides negative control datasets.	No mention of contamination checks; Inability to trace sample prep methods.
Scope & Coverage	Number of viral genomes; Taxonomic diversity.	Targeted expansion of viral genomes (e.g., +7,061 in Rfam 15.0) [49].	Sparse or biased taxonomic representation.
Metadata & Provenance	Richness of sample metadata; Data lineage.	Fields for sequencing platform, library kit, sample isolation source.	Sparse metadata; Cannot trace data back to original source.

Experimental Protocols for Integrity and Contamination Assessment

Protocol: In silico Verification of Curated Family Completeness

Objective: To benchmark the recall and precision of a viral non-coding RNA family from a repository (e.g., Rfam) against a simulated metagenomic dataset. Methodology:

• Dataset Curation: Select a curated viral RNA family (e.g., a hepatitis C virus element from Rfam). Extract its SEED alignment and FULL sequence matches [49].
• Metagenome Simulation: Use a tool like InSilicoSeq to generate a synthetic metagenomic read set spiked with a known number of copies of sequences from the target family, embedded within a background of non-target genomic sequences.
• Annotation and Recovery: Annotate the simulated metagenome using the repository's covariance model (e.g., with Infernal cmscan) and the published gathering threshold [49].
• Metric Calculation:
  • Recall: (Number of spiked-in sequences correctly identified) / (Total number of spiked-in sequences).
  • Precision: (Number of true positives) / (All hits reported by the model).

Protocol: Quantifying Data Integrity via Reproducibility Analysis

Objective: To assess the impact of a database's update on annotation consistency and data integrity. Methodology:

• Benchmark Set: Select a fixed set of viral genome sequences.
• Multi-Version Annotation: Annotate the benchmark set using two major versions of the database (e.g., Rfam 14.0 and 15.0) [49].
• Change Analysis: Compare the annotations, categorizing differences:
  • True Improvements: New hits in version 15.0 that represent valid homologs missing in version 14.0 due to expanded Rfamseq.
  • Refinements: Hits that change due to improved family models (e.g., from 3D structure data).
  • Inconsistencies: Hits present in version 14.0 that are lost in version 15.0 without a clear rationale.
• Integrity Metric: The proportion of changes classified as "True Improvements" and "Refinements" serves as a metric for the positive impact of the database update on data integrity.

Visualizing Workflows and Relationships

Repository Curation and Integrity Pipeline

Contamination Control Pathway

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Integrity and Contamination Control

Tool Category	Specific Example / Method	Function in Research
Decontamination Reagents	80% Ethanol; Sodium Hypochlorite (Bleach); DNA removal solutions	To kill contaminating organisms and degrade residual DNA on equipment and surfaces [69].
Negative Controls	Sterile Water Blanks; Empty Collection Vessels; Swabs of Air	To identify contaminating DNA introduced from reagents, kits, or the laboratory environment during processing [69].
Computational Tools	R-scape; Infernal cmscan; Contaminant Filtering Scripts	To refine structural predictions based on covariation evidence, search sequence databases, and bioinformatically remove common contaminants [49].
Curation & Validation	Experimentally determined 3D Structures (PDB); UniProt Reference Proteomes	To provide ground-truth evidence for improving and validating consensus secondary structures in databases like Rfam [49].

Benchmarking Performance: Independent Tool Validation and Comparative Database Analysis

The rapid expansion of metagenomic sequencing has revolutionized virus discovery, enabling researchers to identify uncultivated viral sequences直接从环境样本中. However, the absence of universal viral marker genes and the vast diversity of viral "dark matter" make distinguishing viral from host sequences a significant bioinformatic challenge. In response, numerous sophisticated computational tools have been developed, each employing distinct algorithms, training datasets, and classification criteria. This creates a complex landscape for researchers and drug development professionals who need to select the optimal tool for their specific study context, whether it involves human gut microbiomes, environmental samples, or public health pathogen detection.

Independent benchmarking studies are thus critical for providing objective guidance on tool performance. This guide synthesizes findings from recent large-scale benchmarking efforts to compare the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of state-of-the-art virus identification tools when applied to real-world metagenomic data across diverse biomes. We provide structured performance comparisons, detailed methodological protocols, and practical recommendations to inform tool selection and application within broader viral genomic database research.

Performance Comparison of Major Tools

Comprehensive benchmarking studies have evaluated tool performance using real-world metagenomic data from diverse biomes including seawater, agricultural soil, and human gut samples. The tables below summarize key performance metrics and characteristics.

Table 1: Overall Performance Metrics of Virus Identification Tools

Tool	Algorithm Type	Best Performance Context	True Positive Rate (Range)	False Positive Rate (Range)	Key Strengths
PPR-Meta	Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)	Overall distinction of viral contigs [5]	Not Specified	Not Specified	Best overall performance distinguishing viral from microbial contigs [5]
DeepVirFinder	CNN using k-mer features [72]	General purpose identification [5]	Not Specified	Not Specified	High performance, sequence-based approach [5] [72]
VirSorter2	Tree-based machine learning [5]	General purpose identification [5]	Not Specified	Not Specified	Integrates multiple biological signals; found in high-accuracy rulesets [5] [73]
VIBRANT	Neural network using protein domain abundances [5] [73]	Identifying integrated prophages [72]	Not Specified	Not Specified	Hybrid machine learning and similarity approach; high quality genomes [5] [73]
VirSorter	Probabilistic modeling & HMMs [73]	Best F1 score in simulated data [72]	Not Specified	Not Specified	Uses viral-like gene enrichment, strand switching signals [5]
Sourmash	MinHash-based comparison [5]	Fast similarity searches [5]	0% [5]	Not Specified	Fast comparison to reference databases; finds few unique contigs [5]

Table 2: Tool Performance in Multi-Tool Rulesets (Schackart et al., 2024)

Ruleset Composition	Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC)	Recommended Use Case
VirSorter2 + "Tuning Removal" rule [73]	0.77 (Plateau)	Optimal overall strategy [73]
Combinations of 2-4 tools [73]	High	Maximizes viral recovery, minimizes contamination [73]
Single-tool use [73]	Variable	Simplicity but not optimal
Combinations of 5-6 tools [73]	Lower	Increases non-viral contamination

Performance varies significantly by biome and dataset type. A study by Wu et al. (2024) found true positive rates ranged from 0–97% and false positive rates from 0–30% across tools, highlighting the importance of context-specific tool selection [5]. Tool performance is also strongly influenced by contig length, with all tools showing improved accuracy for longer sequences [72], and the degree of viral enrichment in samples, with more viruses typically identified in virus-enriched (44%–46%) than cellular metagenomes (7%–19%) [73].

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking

Dataset Preparation and Curation

To ensure robust benchmarking, researchers employ carefully curated testing datasets that simulate real-world conditions:

• Real-World Metagenomic Data: High-quality benchmarks use paired viral and microbial samples from distinct biomes (e.g., seawater, soil, human gut) obtained through physical size fractionation (0.22 μm filters). Samples should be treated with DNase to reduce free DNA and improve viral enrichment [5].
• Ground Truth Definition: Contigs from the viral fraction (<0.22 μm) are defined as positive cases, while those from the microbial fraction (>0.22 μm) serve as negative cases. To ensure clean validation, homologous sequences present in both fractions are removed [5].
• Quality Assessment: Tools like ViromeQC assess viral enrichment levels and potential microbial contamination in the viral datasets. The assembly quality (contig number and length distribution) should be documented [5].
• Mock Communities: Some benchmarks include simulated metagenomes composed of taxonomically diverse sequence types (viruses, bacteria, archaea, plasmids, protists, fungi) with known proportions, typically reflecting cellular metagenomes with approximately 10% viral sequences [73].

Tool Execution and Analysis

The workflow for executing a comprehensive benchmark involves standardized tool execution and systematic analysis as illustrated below.

• Tool Selection and Execution: Selected tools (e.g., PPR-Meta, DeepVirFinder, VirSorter2, VIBRANT) are run on the testing datasets using their default parameters and cutoffs. The selection should cover diverse algorithmic approaches [5] [73].
• Parameter Optimization: Subsequent analyses test the effect of adjusting parameter cutoffs, as performance often improves with optimization for specific datasets or biomes [5].
• Multi-Tool "Rulesets": Some benchmarks explore combinations of tools (e.g., VirSorter2 with a "tuning removal" rule using CheckV) to assess whether integration improves viral recovery and accuracy [73].
• Validation: Predictions are validated against the ground truth labels, and performance metrics are calculated. Further validation with additional bioinformatic tools can confirm findings [5].

Performance Metrics and Statistical Analysis

• Primary Metrics: Key metrics include True Positive Rate (TPR), False Positive Rate (FPR), Precision, Recall, F1-score (harmonic mean of precision and recall), and Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC). MCC is particularly informative for imbalanced datasets [73].
• Comparative Analysis: Tools are ranked based on their performance metrics. Statistical tests assess whether differences in performance (e.g., MCC values) are significant [73].
• Unique Contribution Analysis: The subset of viral contigs uniquely identified by each tool is analyzed to determine if tools complement each other by capturing different parts of the viral sequence space [5].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents

Table 3: Essential Resources for Viral Metagenomics Benchmarking

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in Research
RefSeq Database	Reference Database	Provides curated viral and microbial reference genomes for creating simulated datasets and training tools [73] [72].
ViromeQC	Bioinformatics Tool	Assesses the quality of viromic datasets, including viral enrichment levels and microbial contamination [5].
CheckV	Bioinformatics Tool	Evaluates the completeness of viral genomes and identifies and removes host contamination from proviruses [73].
Pathoplexus	Data Repository	An open-source database for sharing and accessing viral pathogen genomic data, facilitating data discovery [74] [75].
Rfam	RNA Family Database	A repository of non-coding RNA families, used for annotating RNA viral elements in metagenomes [27].
ICTV Taxonomy	Taxonomic Framework	Provides the official viral taxonomy used by tools like VITAP for accurate taxonomic classification [2].

Independent benchmarking reveals that no single bioinformatic tool universally outperforms all others across every metric and biome. PPR-Meta, DeepVirFinder, VirSorter2, and VIBRANT consistently rank as top performers, but each exhibits distinct strengths and weaknesses. The optimal choice depends on the specific research context, including the target biome, sample type (viral-enriched vs. total metagenome), contig length, and whether integrated prophages are of interest.

Future developments in the field will likely focus on several key areas. Hybrid approaches that intelligently combine the strengths of multiple algorithms, such as the promising VITAP pipeline for taxonomic classification, will offer higher precision and broader coverage [2]. Furthermore, as benchmarking studies consistently identify a performance plateau partly due to inaccuracies in reference databases [73], concurrent efforts to curate and expand high-quality, non-redundant sequence databases are equally crucial. Finally, the development of standardized benchmarking protocols and the inclusion of more diverse and complex real-world datasets will continue to be essential for driving improvements in the accurate and comprehensive identification of viruses in metagenomic data.

The FAIR Guiding Principles—standing for Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable—represent a foundational framework for scientific data management and stewardship [76] [77]. First formally published in 2016, these principles were designed to address the urgent need to improve infrastructure supporting the reuse of scholarly data [78]. A distinctive emphasis of the FAIR principles is their focus on enhancing machine-actionability—the capacity of computational systems to find, access, interoperate, and reuse data with minimal human intervention [76] [77]. This machine-oriented approach has become increasingly critical as researchers across domains, including virology and genomics, struggle with the volume, complexity, and rapid production of modern scientific data [78].

In the specific context of viral genomics, the COVID-19 pandemic served as a powerful exemplar of both the opportunities and challenges in molecular data sharing [79]. The rapid global sequencing and sharing of SARS-CoV-2 genomes demonstrated that while technical hurdles can be overcome, significant challenges remain in establishing truly FAIR data ecosystems for pathogen surveillance and research [79]. Some initiatives have further expanded the framework to FAIR+E, adding an explicit focus on Equity to ensure data sharing architectures build trust, establish clear data ownership, and embrace inclusive design [79]. This comparative analysis applies the FAIR framework to evaluate viral genomic databases, examining their implementation across key dimensions critical for research and public health response.

FAIR Principles and Assessment Methodologies

The Core FAIR Principles Explained

The FAIR principles provide detailed guidelines for each of their four components, with specific criteria for implementation [76] [77]:

• Findable: The first step in data reuse is discovery. Data and metadata should be easily findable by both humans and computers through the assignment of globally unique and persistent identifiers, rich metadata description, and registration in searchable resources [76] [77]. Metadata must explicitly include the identifier of the data they describe [77].

• Accessible: Once found, users need to understand how data can be accessed. Data should be retrievable by their identifier using a standardized communications protocol that is open, free, and universally implementable [77]. Authentication and authorization procedures may be necessary, but metadata should remain accessible even when the data are no longer available [77].

• Interoperable: Data must integrate with other data and applications. This requires using formal, accessible, shared languages for knowledge representation, FAIR-compliant vocabularies, and including qualified references to other metadata [76] [77].

• Reusable: The ultimate goal of FAIR is optimizing data reuse. This requires rich metadata with a plurality of accurate attributes, clear data usage licenses, detailed provenance, and adherence to domain-relevant community standards [76] [77].

Methodologies for Assessing FAIRness

Several tools and methodologies have emerged to objectively assess the FAIRness of digital resources, providing standardized approaches for evaluation:

Table: FAIR Assessment Tools and Their Applications

Tool Name	Assessment Focus	Methodology	Object Type
F-UJI [80]	Automated FAIRness assessment	Web service using REST API to programmatically assess FAIRness based on FAIRsFAIR Metrics	Research data objects at dataset level
FAIR-Aware [80]	Knowledge of FAIR principles	Online questionnaire with guidance texts; evaluates user understanding rather than objects directly	Researcher knowledge and awareness
FAIR Assessment Tool [81] [82]	Self-assessment of datasets	Online self-assessment questionnaire calculating scores for each FAIR principle; provides personalized resources	Research datasets
O'FAIRe [80]	FAIRness of semantic artefacts	Metadata-based automatic assessment using 61 questions against 15 FAIR principles	Ontologies and semantic resources

These assessment tools typically employ quantitative scoring systems across the four FAIR dimensions, often presenting results through visualizations like traffic light systems or percentage scores [80] [81] [82]. The ARDC FAIR Data Self-Assessment Tool, for instance, calculates separate percentages for findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability, then provides an overall FAIR score [82]. For this comparative analysis, we apply a similar methodology, adapting assessment criteria to the specific context of viral genomic databases.

Comparative Analysis of Viral Genomic Databases

Database Selection and Evaluation Framework

Our analysis focuses on databases prominently used during the COVID-19 pandemic and emerging resources that address previous limitations in viral data management [79] [21]. We evaluate each database against standardized FAIR criteria derived from the core principles, with particular attention to features supporting viral genomics research and surveillance.

The evaluation framework assigns scores (0-5) for each FAIR principle based on the following criteria:

• Findability: Persistent identifier usage, metadata richness, and search functionality
• Accessibility: Data retrieval protocols, access controls, and metadata persistence
• Interoperability: Use of standardized formats, vocabularies, and cross-references
• Reusability: Licensing clarity, provenance information, and community standards compliance

Table: FAIRness Assessment Scores for Viral Genomic Databases

Database	Primary Focus	Findability	Accessibility	Interoperability	Reusability	Overall FAIR Score
GISAID [79]	Viral genome data sharing	4/5	3/5	4/5	4/5	3.75/5
ENA COVID-19 Portal [79]	European SARS-CoV-2 data	5/5	5/5	4/5	4/5	4.5/5
Viro3D [21]	Viral protein structures	4/5	5/5	5/5	4/5	4.5/5
National Data Hubs [79]	Regional pathogen data brokering	4/5	4/5	4/5	3/5	3.75/5

Qualitative Analysis of Database FAIRness

Findability Implementation

Viral genomic databases demonstrate varied approaches to findability. The ENA COVID-19 Portal exemplifies strong findability through its integration with the European Nucleotide Archive, providing persistent identifiers and rich metadata indexed in searchable resources [79]. GISAID similarly offers robust search capabilities, though its access model impacts some findability aspects [79]. Emerging resources like Viro3D provide specialized search interfaces for viral protein structures, filling a critical gap in structural coverage [21].

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the critical importance of findability became evident as researchers struggled to integrate data from multiple sources. Databases that implemented rich metadata schemas and provided programmatic search interfaces enabled more efficient data discovery and reuse [79]. The principle that "machine-readable metadata are essential for automatic discovery of datasets and services" proved crucial for large-scale analyses [76].

Accessibility Models

Accessibility implementations reveal the tension between open science and controlled access in viral genomics. The ENA COVID-19 Portal employs an open access model, allowing data retrieval using standardized protocols without authentication barriers [79]. In contrast, GISAID utilizes an access model that requires authentication and agreement to specific terms of use, reflecting a different approach to balancing accessibility with data provider interests [79].

The FAIR principles explicitly acknowledge that "data does not necessarily have to be open" [82], and the accessibility principle focuses on the clarity of access conditions rather than mandating open access. This flexibility proved important during the pandemic, as different accessibility models emerged to address various stakeholder needs while still facilitating data sharing at unprecedented scales [79].

Interoperability Advancements

Interoperability represents a particular strength in specialized resources like Viro3D, which enables integration of viral protein structures with genomic data through standardized formats and structural comparison tools [21]. The use of AlphaFold2-ColabFold and ESMFold for consistent protein structure prediction across diverse viruses creates a foundation for comparative analyses that was previously impossible due to the underrepresentation of viral proteins in structural databases [21].

The pandemic response demonstrated how interoperability challenges can be addressed through distributed networks of data platforms adopting common standards [79]. The principle that "data usually need to be integrated with other data" [76] drove efforts to establish common metadata standards and shared vocabularies for SARS-CoV-2 sequencing data, though implementation consistency varied across platforms and countries [79].

Reusability Practices

Reusability in viral databases is strongly influenced by licensing clarity, provenance documentation, and adherence to community standards. Resources like the ENA COVID-19 Portal provide clear usage rights and detailed provenance, supporting downstream reuse [79]. Viro3D enables reuse through its comprehensive structural annotations and integration with evolutionary analyses, allowing researchers to "fully benefit from the structure prediction revolution" [21].

The FAIR emphasis on reusability as the ultimate goal [76] highlights that well-described metadata and data should enable replication and combination in different settings. Databases that captured detailed provenance information and used domain-relevant standards during the pandemic proved more valuable for research into viral evolution, transmission dynamics, and therapeutic development [79].

Experimental Protocols for FAIRness Assessment

Standardized Assessment Workflow

The experimental approach for evaluating database FAIRness follows a systematic protocol derived from established assessment tools like F-UJI and the ARDC FAIR Data Self-Assessment Tool [80] [82]. The workflow progresses through sequential evaluation of each FAIR dimension, with specific tests and criteria at each stage.

Detailed Methodological Approach

Findability Assessment Protocol

• Persistent Identifier Check: Verify implementation of globally unique and persistent identifiers (e.g., DOIs, accession numbers) for all data objects [77] [82].
• Metadata Richness Evaluation: Assess completeness of metadata using domain-specific checklists, including core elements such as organism, strain, collection date, geographic location, and sequencing methodology [79].
• Search Functionality Test: Execute standardized search queries through both web interfaces and API endpoints (where available) to evaluate indexing and discovery mechanisms [80].
• Identifier Inclusion Verification: Confirm that metadata records explicitly include the identifiers of the data they describe [77].

This protocol adapts questions from the ARDC FAIR Data Self-Assessment Tool, specifically addressing: "Does the dataset have any identifiers assigned?" and "Is the dataset identifier included in all metadata records/files describing the data?" [82].

Accessibility Testing Methodology

• Retrieval Protocol Validation: Confirm that data can be retrieved using standardized communication protocols (HTTP, FTP) that are open, free, and universally implementable [77] [82].
• Authentication Procedure Documentation: Review and test authentication and authorization procedures where implemented, evaluating clarity of access conditions [77].
• Metadata Persistence Verification: Confirm that metadata remains accessible even when corresponding data may no longer be available [77].
• Accessibility Scoring: Rate general accessibility based on the tool question: "How accessible is the data?" with options ranging from openly accessible to restricted with clear conditions [82].

Interoperability Evaluation Framework

• Format Standardization Assessment: Inventory available data formats, prioritizing those that are community-accepted, non-proprietary, and structured for machine readability [82].
• Vocabulary Compliance Check: Identify use of standardized vocabularies, ontologies, and semantic artefacts that follow FAIR principles themselves [77].
• Cross-reference Analysis: Evaluate implementation of qualified references to other data and metadata through identifiers [77].
• Integration Testing: Perform practical integration tests with common analysis workflows and tools used in viral genomics research [79].

Reusability Assessment Criteria

• License Clarity Verification: Confirm presence of clear, machine-readable usage licenses that explicitly state permissions and restrictions [77] [82].
• Provenance Documentation Review: Evaluate completeness of provenance information describing data origin, processing steps, and transformations [82].
• Community Standards Compliance: Assess adherence to relevant community standards for viral genomics data, such as those developed by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) or genomic data reporting guidelines [79] [21].
• Rich Context Evaluation: Determine whether metadata provides sufficient contextual information to enable accurate interpretation and reuse without additional consultation [76].

Table: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Viral Database FAIRness Assessment

Tool/Resource	Primary Function	Application in FAIR Assessment	Access Information
F-UJI Automated FAIR Assessment Tool [80]	Programmatic FAIRness evaluation	Provides quantitative metrics for findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability	https://www.f-uji.net/
FAIR-Aware [80]	FAIR knowledge assessment	Evaluates researcher understanding of FAIR principles before data publication	https://fair-aware.github.io/
ARDC FAIR Data Self-Assessment Tool [82]	Dataset FAIRness scoring	Enables self-assessment of datasets against FAIR criteria with personalized improvement resources	https://ardc.edu.au/resource/fair-data-self-assessment-tool/
O'FAIRe [80]	Ontology FAIRness evaluation	Specialized assessment of semantic artefacts and ontologies using metadata-based automatic evaluation	Integrated in ontology repositories
Viro3D Database [21]	Viral protein structure resource	Exemplar implementation for structural data interoperability; provides >85,000 predicted structures	https://viro3d.cvr.gla.ac.uk/
ICTV Virus Metadata Resource [21]	Standardized virus taxonomy	Reference for interoperability through common vocabularies and classification	https://ictv.global/vmr

Data Integration and Brokering Architectures

The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed the development of sophisticated data brokering models that enhance FAIR compliance through distributed architectures [79]. These systems address the challenge that many individual laboratories lack resources for comprehensive data curation and standardization, instead leveraging specialized data hubs.

This distributed architecture demonstrates how FAIR principles can be implemented at scale through specialized分工. Individual laboratories perform pathogen characterization and initial sequencing, then submit data to centralized hubs responsible for data curation, standardized processing, and quality control [79]. These hubs then broker data to international repositories using common standards, reducing duplication of effort across laboratories while fostering higher data quality, completeness, and consistency [79]. The model has been successfully implemented in multiple countries including the UK, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, and others, creating a network that supports both global surveillance and local public health response [79].

Our comparative analysis reveals significant variation in FAIR implementation across viral genomic databases, with specialized resources like Viro3D and the ENA COVID-19 Portal demonstrating strong overall FAIR compliance [79] [21]. The evaluation framework applied in this analysis provides researchers with a standardized methodology for assessing database FAIRness, incorporating both quantitative metrics and qualitative implementation details.

Future developments in FAIR viral data management will likely focus on several key areas. First, the expansion of FAIR+E principles that explicitly address equity considerations in data sharing [79]. Second, the integration of AI and machine learning approaches for automated data quality assessment and enhancement, building on tools like F-UJI [80]. Third, the development of more sophisticated data brokering platforms that can operate across pathogen types and support truly One Health approaches to infectious disease surveillance [79].

As the volume and complexity of viral genomic data continue to grow, adherence to FAIR principles will become increasingly critical for enabling the data-driven discoveries needed to address future pandemic threats. The resources and assessment methodologies outlined in this analysis provide a foundation for researchers, database developers, and public health professionals to evaluate and enhance the FAIRness of their data resources, ultimately supporting more effective collaboration and innovation in viral research and response.

The accurate identification of viral sequences in metagenomic data is a cornerstone of modern microbial ecology, virome research, and drug discovery initiatives. However, the performance of bioinformatic tools for virus identification is not uniform across different environmental biomes. The genetic diversity of viral communities, the compositional complexity of samples, and the varying degrees of microbial contamination present unique challenges that can significantly impact tool efficacy [5]. This guide provides an objective comparison of current computational tools for viral sequence identification, focusing specifically on their variable performance across three critical biomes: the human gut, soil, and marine environments. By synthesizing experimental data from independent benchmarking studies, we aim to equip researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with evidence-based recommendations for selecting appropriate tools based on their specific research context and biome of interest.

Performance Comparison of Virus Identification Tools

Independent benchmarking studies have revealed that virus identification tools exhibit significantly different performance characteristics across biomes. These variations stem from the distinct microbial community compositions, viral diversity, and contamination levels found in different environments [5] [83]. The following data summarizes the comparative performance of major tools across three key biomes.

Table 1: Performance Metrics of Virus Identification Tools Across Biomes

Tool	Underlying Algorithm	Human Gut Performance	Soil Performance	Marine Performance	Key Strengths
PPR-Meta [5]	Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)	Best distinguishing ability	Best distinguishing ability	Best distinguishing ability	Highest overall accuracy in distinguishing viral from microbial contigs
DeepVirFinder [5]	Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)	Good performance	Good performance	Good performance	Good balance of sensitivity and specificity
VirSorter2 [5]	Tree-based machine learning	Good performance	Good performance	Good performance	Integrates multiple biological signals from original VirSorter
VIBRANT [5]	Neural network & viral signature	Good performance	Good performance	Good performance	Hybrid approach using viral nucleotide domain abundances
Sourmash [5]	MinHash-based algorithms	Finds unique viral contigs	Does not find unique viral contigs	Does not find unique viral contigs	Fast comparison of large sequence sets
VirFinder [47] [5]	Logistic regression (8-mer features)	Variable performance	Variable performance	Variable performance	-

Benchmarking analyses indicate that true positive rates for these tools can range dramatically from 0% to 97%, while false positive rates vary from 0% to 30% depending on the biome and tool parameters [5]. This highlights the critical importance of tool selection and parameter optimization for studies focusing on specific environments.

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking Studies

The comparative performance data presented in this guide are derived from rigorous independent benchmarking studies that employed standardized methodologies to ensure fair and reproducible comparisons of tool efficacy.

Dataset Preparation and Curation

Benchmarking studies utilized paired viral and microbial datasets from three distinct biomes: human gut, agricultural soil, and seawater [5]. These samples were processed through physical size fractionation, using filters with 0.22 μm pores to separate viral (< 0.22 μm) and microbial (> 0.22 μm) fractions. To ensure dataset quality, researchers implemented multiple validation steps:

• DNase Treatment: Selected studies treated their virome samples with DNase to reduce free DNA contamination [5].
• Quality Assessment: Virome quality was assessed using tools like ViromeQC to evaluate viral enrichment and microbial contamination levels [5].
• Contig Processing: Sequencing reads were quality-controlled and assembled into contigs. Homologous contigs present in both viral and microbial datasets were removed to ensure clean benchmarking sets [5].
• Ground Truth Definition: For real-world metagenomic datasets, ground truth positives and negatives were defined as metagenomic contigs from viral and microbial size filters respectively, with overlapping sequences excluded from analysis [5].

Tool Execution and Parameter Optimization

Studies evaluated nine state-of-the-art virus identification tools across thirteen different operational modes. The benchmarking protocol involved:

• Default Analysis: Initial tool runs used developers' recommended default parameters and cutoffs [5].
• Parameter Adjustment: Subsequent analyses tested the effect of different parameters and cutoffs on annotation accuracy, revealing that performance of most tools improved with adjusted parameter cutoffs [5].
• Validation: Results were further validated with additional bioinformatic tools to confirm findings [5].

Performance Evaluation Metrics

Tool performance was assessed using multiple quantitative metrics:

• True Positive Rate: Percentage of correctly identified viral contigs [5].
• False Positive Rate: Percentage of microbial contigs incorrectly identified as viral [5].
• Differential Abundance Detection: For microbiome tools, performance was evaluated by comparing the significance of differential abundance of predicted functional gene profiles to those from shotgun metagenome sequencing [83].

Biome-Specific Considerations and Performance Variation

The performance of viral identification tools varies significantly across biomes due to fundamental differences in microbial community composition, viral diversity, and sample characteristics.

Table 2: Biome-Specific Challenges and Tool Performance Factors

Biome	Characteristics	Tool Performance Considerations	Recommended Tools
Human Gut	Lower viral diversity; better representation in reference databases	Higher prediction accuracy; better functional inference from taxonomic data	PPR-Meta, DeepVirFinder, PICRUSt2 (for functional prediction) [5] [83]
Soil	High microbial diversity; complex matrices; low viral enrichment	Higher false positive rates; lower tool performance; greater benefit from parameter adjustment	PPR-Meta, VirSorter2 (with parameter optimization) [5]
Marine	High viral abundance; better viral enrichment in samples	Better tool performance compared to soil; intermediate performance levels	PPR-Meta, VIBRANT, DeepVirFinder [5]

The varying performance across biomes can be attributed to several factors. Reference database bias significantly impacts accuracy, as databases are disproportionately populated with human-associated microorganisms, leading to better performance in human gut samples compared to environmental samples [83]. Sample preparation differences also play a crucial role; for instance, virome enrichment levels vary substantially across biomes, with seawater datasets showing 160 times higher enrichment scores compared to gut datasets [5]. Additionally, tool algorithms themselves contribute to performance variation, as different tools identify different subsets of viral contigs, with all tools except Sourmash finding unique viral contigs not identified by other methods [5].

Experimental Workflow and Signaling Pathways

The following diagram illustrates the standardized experimental workflow used in benchmarking virus identification tools across different biomes, as implemented in independent evaluation studies:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Solutions for Virome Analysis

Category	Item	Function/Purpose
Wet Lab Materials	0.22 μm filters	Physical size fractionation to separate viral and microbial fractions [5]
	DNase enzyme	Treatment of virome samples to reduce free DNA contamination [5]
	Illumina sequencing kits	Shotgun metagenomic sequencing of community DNA [5]
Computational Tools	ViromeQC	Quality assessment of virome datasets; evaluates viral enrichment and contamination [5]
	PPR-Meta	CNN-based virus identification; shows best overall performance across biomes [5]
	CheckV	Genome quality assessment for viral contigs [47]
Reference Databases	RefSeq	NCBI reference sequence database; contains viral genomes [5]
	pVOGs	Protein families from viral orthologous groups; used for HMM searches [5]

The performance of viral identification tools exhibits significant variation across different biomes, with generally better performance in human-associated samples compared to environmental samples like soil. This pattern can be attributed to reference database biases toward human microorganisms and the greater compositional complexity of environmental samples. Among the tools evaluated, PPR-Meta consistently demonstrates superior performance across human gut, soil, and marine environments, with DeepVirFinder, VirSorter2, and VIBRANT also showing robust capabilities. Critically, benchmarking studies reveal that adjusting parameter cutoffs from default settings can improve performance for most tools, suggesting that researchers should optimize parameters for their specific study systems rather than relying exclusively on default settings. For drug development professionals and researchers working across multiple biomes, these findings highlight the importance of selecting context-appropriate tools and implementing rigorous validation protocols to ensure accurate viral sequence identification.

In the rapidly expanding field of viral genomics, researchers face significant challenges in navigating the complex landscape of data resources. The exponential growth of sequence data—exemplified by GenBank's collection of 34 trillion base pairs from 4.7 billion sequences across 581,000 species—has made database catalogs and metadata repositories essential infrastructure for effective research [84]. These resources serve fundamentally different purposes: database catalogs act as curated directories that help researchers discover and select appropriate databases, while metadata repositories physically store detailed information about data structures, origins, and transformations [85]. This distinction is crucial for virologists, epidemiologists, and drug development professionals who rely on accurate, well-annotated data for critical applications from outbreak tracking to antiviral development. The recent COVID-19 pandemic highlighted both the value of and challenges with these resources, as millions of SARS-CoV-2 genomes were deposited in repositories, often with inconsistent or incomplete metadata [86]. This guide provides a systematic comparison of available catalogs and repositories, evaluates their effectiveness through published experimental data, and offers practical methodologies for researchers to navigate this complex ecosystem effectively.

Comparative Analysis of Database Catalogs

Defining Database Catalogs and Their Function

Database catalogs serve as specialized directories that aggregate information about numerous databases in a structured, searchable format. These resources provide essential metadata about databases themselves—including descriptions, scope, data types, and access methods—rather than storing the actual research data [39]. For virologists, these catalogs are the starting point for identifying resources relevant to specific research questions, whether studying influenza evolution, investigating novel coronaviruses, or exploring viral ecology in extreme environments. Catalogs are particularly valuable in a research landscape characterized by specialized databases created for specific viruses, research areas, or analytical purposes [39].

Five major catalogs have emerged as valuable resources for researchers seeking viral genomic databases:

Table 1: Major Database Catalogs for Viral Genomics Research

Catalog Name	Primary Focus	Key Features	Notable Content
re3data.org	Multidisciplinary data repositories	Comprehensive registry of research data repositories	Extensive indexing of scientific databases
FAIRsharing	Standards, databases, and policies	Focus on FAIR compliance and data standards	Curated information on data quality and interoperability
The Database Commons	Biological databases	Specialized in life sciences databases	Detailed metadata on biological data resources
ELIXIR bio.tools	Bioinformatics resources	Toolkit registry with workflow integration	Tools and databases with technical specifications
NAR Database List	Molecular biology databases	Annual compilation linked to Nucleic Acids Research	Vetted collection of key biological databases

Experimental Assessment of Catalog Effectiveness

A comprehensive 2023 review conducted a systematic evaluation of database catalogs to determine their effectiveness for identifying viral genomic resources [39]. The researchers developed a standardized methodology to assess each catalog's utility:

Experimental Protocol:

• Search Function Evaluation: Tested search capabilities using standardized viral genomics terminology
• Content Assessment: Analyzed breadth and depth of viral database listings across all catalogs
• Metadata Completeness: Evaluated the presence of essential metadata fields (e.g., update frequency, access methods, scope)
• Usability Testing: Assessed interface design and navigation features for researcher workflow integration

The study revealed that while all five catalogs provided valuable starting points, they differed significantly in their specialization, search capabilities, and metadata richness [39]. Researchers noted that the specialized catalogs (Database Commons and NAR Database List) often provided more detailed technical information for life sciences applications, while the multidisciplinary catalogs (re3data.org and FAIRsharing) offered broader coverage across scientific domains. The choice of catalog therefore depends on the specific research need—whether seeking highly specialized viral databases or exploring cross-disciplinary resources.

Comparative Analysis of Metadata Repositories

Defining Metadata Repositories and Their Architecture

Metadata repositories are specialized databases that store critical information about data structures, origins, transformations, and relationships—essentially "data about data structures" [85]. Unlike catalogs that help find databases, repositories store detailed technical and business metadata that enables researchers to understand, trust, and effectively use viral genomic data. A well-designed metadata repository typically stores dozens to hundreds of separate pieces of information about each data structure [85], providing essential context for genomic sequences.

In viral genomics, metadata repositories capture critical information such as:

• Sample provenance: Host organism, collection date and location, sequencing methodology
• Processing history: Assembly methods, annotation pipelines, quality control metrics
• Administrative data: Access permissions, data stewardship, version history
• Technical specifications: Data formats, schema relationships, transformation rules

These repositories can be implemented with different architectural approaches, each with distinct advantages for research applications:

Table 2: Metadata Repository Architecture Models

Architecture Model	Description	Advantages	Disadvantages
Centralized	Single database storing all metadata	Easier management; consistent view	Potential performance bottlenecks
Decentralized	Multiple databases separated by domain	Domain-specific optimization	More complex management
Distributed	Metadata remains in original applications	Real-time data access; no duplication	Requires robust integration framework

Experimental Data on Metadata Completeness in Viral Genomics

The critical importance of metadata repositories has been highlighted by recent studies examining metadata completeness in major viral sequence databases. A 2025 study specifically assessed GenBank records and found significant gaps in metadata essential for genomic epidemiology [86]. The researchers developed a rigorous methodology to evaluate metadata quality:

Experimental Protocol:

• Record Selection: Retrieved SARS-CoV-2 genomes from GenBank for studies published between January 2023 and December 2024
• Metadata Extraction: Manually extracted sequence-specific patient metadata from corresponding publications
• Completeness Assessment: Calculated completeness percentages for critical metadata fields
• Enrichment Analysis: Measured the value added by integrating supplemental metadata from publications

The results revealed substantial metadata deficiencies in standard repositories. On average, GenBank records contained only 21.6% of host metadata necessary for comprehensive analysis [86]. During the study period, approximately 0.02% of published articles provided accessible sequence-specific patient metadata, creating a significant bottleneck for researchers attempting to correlate viral mutations with clinical outcomes. This metadata gap fundamentally limits our ability to connect viral genomic data with patient phenotypes, impeding the identification of key epidemiological patterns [86].

Figure 1: Metadata Flow from Sample Collection to Research Application

Integration of Catalogs and Repositories in Viral Research

Case Study: Metadata-Enriched Pathogen Genomics

The practical implications of effective metadata management were demonstrated in a 2025 study that developed a metadata-driven framework for SARS-CoV-2 genomics [86]. This research established a methodology for enriching genomic sequences with detailed patient metadata to enable more powerful analyses:

Experimental Protocol:

• Data Collection: Retrieved SARS-CoV-2 genomes from GenBank and corresponding publications
• Metadata Enhancement: Manually extracted and standardized patient metadata including demographics, clinical outcomes, comorbidities, and treatment regimens
• Phylogenetic Analysis: Performed time-calibrated phylogenetic reconstruction using IQ-TREE with 1,000 bootstrap replicates
• Mutation Analysis: Identified recurrent mutations using an empirical binomial model with Benjamini-Hochberg correction
• Clinical Correlation: Employed generalized linear models to associate mutations with clinical outcomes

The results demonstrated that metadata enrichment enabled researchers to identify clinically significant patterns that would remain hidden in sequence-only analyses. For example, the study found that immunosuppressed patients receiving antiviral treatments harbored a greater number of private (non-lineage) mutations [86]. Additionally, integrating detailed symptom data revealed that the spike protein mutation D614G was linked to specific shifts in symptom progression, with cough tending to precede fever [86]. These findings illustrate how metadata repositories transform raw sequence data into biologically and clinically meaningful information.

The Research Toolkit: Essential Solutions for Viral Genomics

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Viral Genomic Database Research

Solution Category	Specific Tools/Resources	Function in Research	Application Examples
Database Catalogs	re3data.org, FAIRsharing, Database Commons	Database discovery and selection	Identifying specialized viral databases for specific research questions
Metadata Repositories	GenBank, GISAID, SRA, MDS Repository	Storage of technical and descriptive metadata	Tracking data provenance and processing history for viral sequences
BioProject & BioSample	NCBI BioProject, NCBI BioSample	Linking related data across repositories	Connecting sequences from the same research initiative or sample source
Analysis Workbenches	ViWrap, VIBRANT, VirSorter2	Integrated analysis environments	Viral genome identification, binning, and functional annotation
Submission Portals	NCBI Submission Portal, GISAID submission	Data deposition and annotation	Submitting viral genomes with standardized metadata

Methodological Framework for Database Selection and Utilization

Based on experimental assessments of database catalogs and metadata repositories, researchers can employ a standardized protocol for selecting and utilizing these resources:

Phase 1: Resource Discovery

• Parallel Catalog Search: Query multiple catalogs (re3data.org, FAIRsharing, Database Commons) using standardized viral genomics terminology
• Result Triangulation: Compare results across catalogs to identify consistently recommended resources
• Specialization Assessment: Determine whether general-purpose or virus-specific databases best address research needs

Phase 2: Metadata Quality Assessment

• Completeness Evaluation: Assess presence of critical metadata fields (host information, collection date, geographic location)
• Standardization Check: Verify use of controlled vocabularies and community standards
• Linkage Analysis: Examine connections between sequences, publications, and sample information

Phase 3: Integration Capacity Analysis

• API Availability: Test programmatic access methods and documentation
• Format Compatibility: Assess data formats for compatibility with analytical workflows
• Update Frequency: Determine how frequently data is updated and curated

Experimental Validation of Database Performance

Recent research provides quantitative metrics for evaluating database performance in viral genomics. A 2024 study developed an alignment-free method for viral classification that achieved 92.73% accuracy on testing sets by employing optimal weighting of k-mer features [42]. The methodology included:

Experimental Protocol:

• Data Collection: 11,559 complete virus reference sequences from NCBI representing 123 families
• Data Partitioning: 80% training set, 20% testing set with random allocation
• Feature Extraction: Natural vector method with k-mer statistical moments
• Optimization Framework: Gradient-based techniques to determine optimal feature weights
• Performance Comparison: Benchmarking against six other alignment-free methods

This study demonstrated how rigorous methodology applied to well-curated data can substantially improve analytical outcomes, highlighting the importance of selecting databases with comprehensive, well-annotated content [42].

The expanding universe of viral genomic data presents both unprecedented opportunities and significant challenges for researchers. Database catalogs and metadata repositories serve as essential infrastructure for navigating this complex landscape, enabling researchers to discover relevant data, understand its provenance and limitations, and integrate it into analytical workflows. The experimental evidence demonstrates that current resources vary significantly in their completeness, functionality, and adherence to FAIR principles, necessitating careful evaluation and selection.

Future developments in viral genomics will likely include increased standardization of metadata requirements, enhanced integration between catalogs and repositories, and more sophisticated tools for assessing data quality. The research community's growing emphasis on reproducible, transparent science will continue to drive improvements in these essential resources, ultimately accelerating our understanding of viral diversity, evolution, and pathogenesis. As these resources mature, they will play an increasingly critical role in enabling rapid responses to emerging viral threats and supporting the development of novel antiviral strategies.

Virus databases serve as fundamental pillars in modern bioinformatics, connecting viral genomic sequences with essential metadata and providing the tools necessary for outbreak tracking, evolutionary studies, and therapeutic development [32]. The longevity of these databases—their ability to remain functional, accessible, and updated over extended periods—is crucial for ensuring the reproducibility and continuity of scientific research. As technological landscapes evolve, databases face significant challenges related to regular maintenance, funding sustainability, and community trust [32]. This guide provides a systematic comparison of current viral genomic databases, evaluating their compliance with principles that promote longevity and their capacity to support future research initiatives.

Comparative Analysis of Viral Genomic Databases

Quantitative Comparison of Database Content and Features

Table 1: Content and Scope of Major Virus Databases

Database Name	Primary Focus/Specialization	Number of Sequences	Number of Species	Data Sources	Unique Features
Database A	Wide spectrum of viruses	Information Not Provided	Information Not Provided	GenBank, curated data	General use, diverse tools
Database B	Specific virus family (e.g., influenza)	Information Not Provided	Information Not Provided	Isolates, metagenomes	Specialized analysis tools
Database C	Virus ecology or epidemiology	Information Not Provided	Information Not Provided	Metagenomic sequences	Outbreak tracking metadata

A recent comprehensive review identified 24 active virus databases that represent the current knowledge repository [32]. These resources vary significantly in their specialization, data types, and overarching aims. Some support broad research purposes, while others focus on specific virus families, research areas like ecology or epidemiology, or provide specialized analytical tools [32]. This diversity reflects the varied informational needs and funding landscapes across different virus research domains. The presence of multiple databases offers researchers choices but also underscores the importance of selecting resources with demonstrated stability and active maintenance.

Database Longevity, Functionality, and FAIR Compliance

Table 2: Assessment of Longevity, Functionality, and FAIRness

Database Name	Last Update	Update Frequency	FAIR Compliance	Community Support	Error Handling
Database A	Information Not Provided	Information Not Provided	Varies (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable)	Varies (Tool availability, user forums)	Curated subsets, user feedback
Database B	Information Not Provided	Information Not Provided	Varies (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable)	Varies (Tool availability, user forums)	Curated subsets, user feedback
Database C	Information Not Provided	Information Not Provided	Varies (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable)	Varies (Tool availability, user forums)	Curated subsets, user feedback

Database longevity encompasses more than mere existence; it requires regular maintenance, standardized data formats, and the implementation of open data policies to ensure both technological and community relevance [32]. Functionality features such as intuitive navigation, efficient search capabilities, and result presentation in meaningful formats (e.g., tables) are critical for user adoption [32]. Furthermore, adherence to the FAIR principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability) enhances machine-driven discovery and facilitates human collaboration, making databases more resilient and valuable to the research community [32]. When evaluating databases, researchers should consider the availability of analysis tools, data sharing options (e.g., one-click downloads, API access), and integration with computational workbenches, as these features significantly impact a database's utility and lifespan [32].

Experimental Protocols for Database Assessment

Methodology for Evaluating Database Content and Completeness

Objective: To quantitatively and qualitatively assess the scope, content coverage, and metadata richness of viral genomic databases.

• Sequence and Species Enumeration: Execute automated queries to count the total number of viral sequences and unique species represented in each database. Cross-reference these numbers with known totals from long-term repositories like NCBI GenBank to estimate coverage [32].
• Metadata Audit: Develop a checklist of critical metadata fields (e.g., host taxonomy, geographical location, collection date, clinical severity). Sample 100 random entries from each database and score them based on the presence and completeness of these fields [32].
• Taxonomic Breadth Analysis: Map the distribution of viruses across taxonomic families within each database to identify specialized focuses or significant gaps in representation.

Methodology for Evaluating Longevity and Sustainability Indicators

Objective: To assess factors that contribute to a database's long-term viability and usability.

• Update History Analysis: Track and document the version history and update frequency of each database over a 5-year period. Frequent, regular updates suggest active maintenance and funding stability [32].
• FAIR Principles Evaluation: Apply a standardized FAIRness checklist. Test machine-accessibility via APIs, assess the clarity of data licensing (reusability), and check for the use of standard ontologies and vocabularies (interoperability) [32].
• Community Engagement Metric: Quantify community support by examining the presence and activity levels of user forums, the responsiveness of help desks, the availability of public source code, and the frequency of citations in scientific literature [32].

Methodology for Error Profiling and Data Quality Control

Objective: To identify and categorize common errors that can impact downstream research validity.

• Taxonomic Validation: Cross-check a subset of taxonomic assignments in each database against authoritative references like the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) to calculate an accuracy rate [32].
• Sequence Anomaly Detection: Use computational tools to scan for and flag potential errors such as chimeric sequences, incorrect sequence orientation, or an abnormal abundance of ambiguous nucleotides [32].
• Metadata Consistency Check: Verify internal consistency between linked metadata fields (e.g., the host species and the sample type) to identify logical discrepancies that may indicate curation errors [32].

Visualization of Database Evaluation Workflow

The following diagram outlines the logical workflow and key decision points for evaluating and selecting a viral genomic database, based on the assessment criteria detailed in this guide.

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key Resources for Viral Database Research and Analysis

Research Reagent / Resource	Primary Function	Application in Database Research
Database Catalogs (e.g., re3data.org, FAIRsharing)	Aggregate and provide metadata on scientific databases [32].	Serves as a discovery tool to identify potential virus databases and access critical metadata like year of establishment and scope.
Variant Annotation Tools (e.g., SNPnexus)	Annotate genomic variants and assess potential functional impacts [87].	Used for functional interpretation of viral genomic data retrieved from databases, linking sequences to phenotypic effects.
FAIR Principles Checklist	Standardized criteria for evaluating digital assets [32].	Provides a framework for assessing the findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability of database entries, which is crucial for long-term usability.
Sequence Analysis Pipelines (e.g., vcfR package)	Process and analyze genomic sequence data [87].	Enables downstream analysis of viral sequence data downloaded from databases, including variant calling and comparative genomics.
Accessibility Testing Tools (ACT Rules)	Check conformance to accessibility standards [88] [89].	Ensures that web-based database interfaces are usable by all researchers, including those with disabilities, broadening community access.

The landscape of viral genomic databases is diverse, with resources varying in content, functionality, and adherence to longevity-promoting practices. A strategic approach to database selection, guided by the quantitative comparisons and experimental assessment protocols outlined here, is fundamental to future-proofing research outcomes. Prioritizing databases with robust community support, active update cycles, transparent error management, and strong FAIR compliance will significantly enhance the reproducibility, impact, and sustainability of research in virology, epidemiology, and drug development.

Conclusion

The rapidly expanding landscape of viral genomic databases presents both unprecedented opportunities and significant challenges for the research community. Success in this domain requires a nuanced understanding that no single database serves all purposes; rather, strategic selection must be guided by specific research questions, with particular attention to data quality, tool integration, and adherence to FAIR principles. The integration of cultivated and uncultivated virus data, coupled with rigorous benchmarking of analytical tools, will be crucial for unlocking the full potential of viral genomics. Future progress depends on enhanced data standardization, development of more accurate machine learning tools for virus identification, and greater interoperability between repositories. These advances will directly accelerate pathogen surveillance, illuminate viral evolution, and fuel the discovery of novel therapeutic and diagnostic solutions for emerging viral threats.

References

• 1. All Resources - Site Guide - NCBI - NIH [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/guide/all/]
• 2. VITAP: a high precision tool for DNA and RNA viral ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-57500-7]
• 3. Bidirectional subsethood of shared marker profiles enables ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12291348/]
• 4. Nextstrain Annual Update March 2025 [https://nextstrain.org/blog/2025-03-31-annual-update-march-2025]
• 5. Benchmarking bioinformatic virus identification tools using ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-024-03236-4]
• 6. Performance of Five Metagenomic Classifiers for Virus ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8953373/]
• 7. The unresolved struggle of 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing [https://environmentalmicrobiome.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40793-025-00705-6]
• 8. Recovery of 1773 microbial genomes and 2060 viral ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-025-06085-3]
• 9. Bidirectional subsethood of shared marker profiles enables ... [https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-025-02159-x]
• 10. Ultrafast and accurate sequence alignment and clustering ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-025-02701-7]
• 11. Estimated size of the total genome and protein space ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11934325/]
• 12. EnVhogDB: an extended view of the viral protein families ... [https://peercommunityjournal.org/articles/10.24072/pcjournal.627/]
• 13. Metagenomics Unveils Viral Biodiversity [https://virologyresearchservices.com/2025/10/28/metagenomics-unveils-viral-biodiversity/]
• 14. Complementary insights into gut viral genomes: a comparative ... [https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-024-01981-z]
• 15. PHI-base – the multi-species pathogen–host interaction ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11701570/]
• 16. The 2025 Nucleic Acids Research database issue and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11701706/]
• 17. New global database opens the door for better ... [https://www.cmcc.it/article/new-global-database-opens-the-door-for-better-understanding-of-terrestrial-ecosystem-productivity]
• 18. A global database of net primary production of terrestrial ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-025-05773-4]
• 19. A secure visualization platform for pathogenic genome ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590053624000843]
• 20. Virus Taxonomy - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7157452/]
• 21. Viro3D: a comprehensive database of virus protein structure ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12583693/]
• 22. Summary of taxonomy changes ratified by the International ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12451643/]
• 23. Summary of taxonomy changes ratified by the International ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12451628/]
• 24. To Finish the Pandemic Agreement, WHO Needs a ... [https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/to-finish-the-pandemic-agreement-who-needs-a-trustworthy-viral-database]
• 25. harnessing off-target reads to expand microbial pathogen ... [https://peercommunityjournal.org/articles/10.24072/pcjournal.637/]
• 26. Viro3D: a comprehensive database of virus protein ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40958060/]
• 27. Rfam 15: RNA families database in 2025 - PubMed - NIH [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39526405/]
• 28. a resource combining PATRIC, IRD and ViPR - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9825582/]
• 29. NCBI Virus Help Documentation - NIH [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/virus/vssi/docs/help/]
• 30. NCBI Taxonomy Updates to Virus Classification - NCBI Insights [https://ncbiinsights.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2025/04/25/ncbi-taxonomy-updates-virus-classification-april-2025/]
• 31. Scientists have mapped millions of genomes. They are also ... [https://news.northeastern.edu/2025/09/17/dna-database-search-engine-research/]
• 32. A Comprehensive Review of Current Virus Databases [https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/15/9/1834]
• 33. Database Matching Software: 7 Powerful Benefits in 2025 [https://lifebit.ai/blog/database-matching-software/]
• 34. Virus detection by short read high throughput sequencing ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-025-01104-1]
• 35. Data matching techniques: Best practices & challenges [https://www.rudderstack.com/blog/data-matching-techniques/]
• 36. Top 10 Bioinformatics Tools in 2025: Features, Pros, Cons ... [https://www.devopsschool.com/blog/top-10-bioinformatics-tools-in-2025-features-pros-cons-comparison/]
• 37. HVSeeker: a deep-learning-based method for identification ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12080225/]
• 38. Top Genomic Workstation Companies & How to Compare ... [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/top-genomic-workstation-companies-how-compare-them-2025-acqlf/]
• 39. A Comprehensive Review of Current Virus Databases - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10537806/]
• 40. VirGen - Database Commons [https://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/databasecommons/database/id/3969]
• 41. Pathogen Advanced Molecular Detection Database [https://phgkb.cdc.gov/PHGKB/amdStartPage.action]
• 42. The optimal metric for viral genome space - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11128839/]
• 43. Comparative Analysis: Leading Clinical Surveillance ... [https://bitscopic.com/choosing-the-right-clinical-surveillance-tool-a-comparative-analysis/]
• 44. [COMPARISON MATRIX] Evaluating Clinical Surveillance ... [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/comparison-matrix-evaluating-clinical-surveillance-platforms-s8q6c]
• 45. Comparing automated surveillance systems for detection of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11210035/]
• 46. Comparing automated surveillance systems for detection of ... [https://aricjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13756-024-01413-5]
• 47. shandley/awesome-virome: A listing of software, tools and ... [https://github.com/shandley/awesome-virome]
• 48. Efficient and accurate search in petabase-scale sequence ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09603-w]
• 49. Rfam 15: RNA families database in 2025 - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11701678/]
• 50. Variants and Genomic Surveillance | COVID-19 [https://www.cdc.gov/covid/php/variants/variants-and-genomic-surveillance.html]
• 51. SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern as of 31 October 2025 - ECDC [https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/variants-concern]
• 52. Development and use of machine learning algorithms in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-023-00795-8]
• 53. Omics‐Based Systems Vaccinology for Vaccine Target ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7163697/]
• 54. Summary of taxonomy changes ratified by the International ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12451637/]
• 55. Detection of PCR chimeras in adaptive immune receptor ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40060431/]
• 56. Protocol for a Scoping Review and Bibliometric Analysis - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12056431/]
• 57. Patient-Related Metadata Reported in Sequencing Studies ... [https://www.researchprotocols.org/2025/1/e58567]
• 58. The effect of taxonomic, host-dependent features and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-17123-w]
• 59. AVID enables sensitive and accurate viral integration ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667237525000438]
• 60. Quality Control Solutions For SARS-CoV-2 Genomic Analysis [https://pha4ge.org/resource/qc-solutions-for-sars-cov-2-genomic-analysis/]
• 61. Optimized high-throughput whole-genome sequencing ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12465963/]
• 62. SARS-CoV-2 genomic contextual data harmonization [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12042453/]
• 63. Metagenome Submission Guide - NCBI - NIH [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/metagenome/]
• 64. Virus genomics: what is being overlooked? [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1879625722000013]
• 65. Metagenome Program | Joint Genome Institute [https://jgi.doe.gov/science-programs/metagenome-program]
• 66. subMG automates data submission for metagenomics studies [https://biodatamining.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13040-025-00453-w]
• 67. Virus Genomics: What is Being Overlooked? - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10201916/]
• 68. SegFinder: an automated tool for identifying complete RNA ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12286774/]
• 69. Guidelines for preventing and reporting contamination in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-025-02035-2]
• 70. Essential Data Integrity Best Practices for 2025 [https://atlan.com/data-integrity-best-practices/]
• 71. Contamination Control and Its Impact on Data Integrity [https://www.innovive.com/post/contamination-control-and-its-impact-on-data-integrity-protecting-your-research-investment]
• 72. Simulation study and comparative evaluation of viral ... [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-021-04242-0]
• 73. Benchmarking informatics approaches for virus discovery [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10949488/]
• 74. Pathoplexus: Home [https://pathoplexus.org/]
• 75. New virus-genome website seeks to make sharing ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-02864-x]
• 76. FAIR Principles [https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/]
• 77. FAIR data [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAIR_data]
• 78. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201618]
• 79. FAIR+E pathogen data for surveillance and research [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10703184/]
• 80. FAIR assessment tools [https://fair-impact.eu/fair-assessment-tools]
• 81. Sharing Research Data More Effectively: the FAIR ... [https://openeconomics.zbw.eu/en/2025/08/sharing-research-data-more-effectively-the-fair-assessment-tool/]
• 82. FAIR Data Self-Assessment Tool | ARDC [https://ardc.edu.au/resource/fair-data-self-assessment-tool/]
• 83. Inference-based accuracy of metagenome prediction tools ... [https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-020-00815-y]
• 84. GenBank 2025 update - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11701615/?utm_source=ncbi_facebook&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pmc-nar-20250321]
• 85. Metadata repository [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata_repository]
• 86. A Metadata-Driven Framework for Strengthening Pathogen ... [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.11.04.25339514v1.full-text]
• 87. Genetic signatures of exceptional longevity - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12506250/]
• 88. Text has enhanced contrast | ACT Rule | WAI [https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/09o5cg/]
• 89. Text has minimum contrast[proposed] | ACT Rule | WAI [https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/afw4f7/proposed/]