New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[REVIEW]: MetaGenePipe: An Automated, Portable Pipeline for Contig-based Functional and Taxonomic Analysis #4851
Comments
Hello humans, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
|
|
Wordcount for |
|
Thanks for agreeing to review this submission. The process for conducting a review is outlined above. Please run the command shown above to have @editorialbot generate your checklist, which will give a step-by-step process for conducting your review. Please check the boxes during your review to keep track, as well as make comments in this thread or open issues in the repository itself to point out issues you encounter. Keep in mind that our aim is to improve the submission to the point where it is of high enough quality to be accepted, rather than to provide a yes/no decision, and so having a conversation with the authors is encouraged rather than providing a single review post at the end of the process. Here are the review guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html Please let me know if you encounter any issues or need any help during the review process, and thanks for contributing your time to JOSS and the open source community! |
Review checklist for @EbedthanConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
Summary and overall critics Major points
Minor points
|
…mmunity guidelines and a link to the documentation (openjournals/joss-reviews#4851)
@Ebedthan thank you for your helpful suggestions. We have incorporated them all into the paper. Would you please be able to check the shortened statement of need to make sure it's clear? |
@Ebedthan We've also addressed the other issues you've raised |
@editorialbot generate pdf |
It's a nicely written paper, below are some comments on the paper, I'm going to download and try the tool next. Minor points on the paper mostly centring around the "output" of the tool which isn't really described in much detail anywhere either in the paper or on the GitHub repo. I think some minor expansion on the main taxonomic output files of the tool would be useful. Specific points: 13 - "output that is useful in its default format" - what is the default format and why is it useful 31-33 - clarify - so MetaGenePipe does not do any nucleotide to nucleotide comparison then - and would potentially miss non-coding sequence classification? Later on (line 74) the BLAST NT db is mentioned 35 - Think it would be good to give a one line explanation on each of these - what are Kegg Brite and KoalaFarm profiles (this could come under explanation of output - see later) 49 - do you have any guidance on how it could be applied to viruses? 75 - the output of MetaGenePipe is not really describe in much detail anywhere. Given BLAST output is quite structured - what parsing is happening here? How does this result in more easily searchable data? Are the "no hits" in a separate file? 79-87 - for quantifying relative abundance - how can this be done here? Is a file created that has a list of contigs, their taxonomic assignment and the number of reads mapping? i.e. is the output here the relative abundance of the contig alone - or can it easily be used to calculate abundance at taxon levels 88-96 - so what is output at this step? A contig could have multiple ORFs - are each one evaluated separately - can you link back to the contig - is it just Kegg/Koala IDs or are their taxon name assignments also included - are these specific taxons (i.e. species/strain) or are they broader taxonomic paths also included Table 1 - is the ordering of the table correct - the map reads step is near the end - but the description places it earlier Github Repo - the main output is the Taxon output which is described very briefly on the GitHub repo as Level 1/2/3 Kegg Brite Hierarchical count (not mention of Koala) - can the specific output format be described in more detail - perhaps and example output file(s) from a given metagenomics set be provided |
Hi @rjorton, how are your attempts to download and use the tool? Are the authors responding to the issues you pointed out above? |
Hi @jmschrei and @rjorton: I apologize for the delay in responding to these very helpful questions and comments. Upon investigating the answers we have found a few bugs in the workflow, and I am in the process of fixing them. It will take a bit longer than usual given that the first author sadly passed away a few weeks ago. I really appreciate your patience as we work through this! |
@mariadelmarq I am the AEiC on this track. I just want to say our condolences on the loss of your colleague. Please let us know how much time you need (or indeed if pursuing publication with JOSS is still possible). I'll pause this submission for now but we can resume whenever you are ready. |
@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman @jmschrei Thank you so much for your understanding. We're hoping to reply addressing all of @rjorton's comments before the end of this week. |
@editorialbot generate pdf |
@rjorton Thank you once again for your extremely helpful comments and questions! Responses to comments are below. Please let us know if you run into any problems downloading and testing the workflow. Happy holidays to you all! 1. 13 - "output that is useful in its default format" - what is the default format and why is it useful We have rephrased this part of the summary. We did not consider it advisable to give lots of details on output formats in the summary but have included a whole section on this in the main document and there is an output tree available in the repository readme, which we now refer to in the main text. 2. 31-33 - clarify - so MetaGenePipe does not do any nucleotide to nucleotide comparison then - and would potentially miss non-coding sequence classification? Later on (line 74) the BLAST NT db is mentioned The BLAST step in the Assembly workflow is indeed at the nucleotide level, but these blast outputs are not used for the final taxonomic or functional classifications, which is situated within the gene Prediction subworkflow. For that element, indeed only protein-coding sequences are used. We have rephrased the summary to clarify that BLASTn happens at a different stage in the workflow. 3. 35 - Think it would be good to give a one line explanation on each of these - what are Kegg Brite and KoalaFarm profiles (this could come under explanation of output - see later) The summary has been compacted down but we have addressed this in main paper. 4. 49 - do you have any guidance on how it could be applied to viruses? This is a complicated question as viral coding sequence prediction depends on the host and whether they have an RNA or DNA genome. We now cite this recent comparative analysis of techniques that helps users evaluate what suits their needs best: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.11.472104v1 5. 75 - the output of MetaGenePipe is not really describe in much detail anywhere. Given BLAST output is quite structured - what parsing is happening here? How does this result in more easily searchable data? Are the "no hits" in a separate file? We have included a new section describing the main outputs and an exhaustive listing in the docs. 6. 79-87 - for quantifying relative abundance - how can this be done here? Is a file created that has a list of contigs, their taxonomic assignment and the number of reads mapping? i.e. is the output here the relative abundance of the contig alone - or can it easily be used to calculate abundance at taxon levels The mapping results in SAM/BAM mapping files for each pair of read files, which can be used for downstream metagenome binning applications, or users could use these to obtain a list of contigs with read depth metrics by running the jgi_summarize_bam_contig_depths tool. 7. 88-96 - so what is output at this step? A contig could have multiple ORFs - are each one evaluated separately - can you link back to the contig - is it just Kegg/Koala IDs or are their taxon name assignments also included - are these specific taxons (i.e. species/strain) or are they broader taxonomic paths also included The output tables are simply counts of ORFs matching to KEGG IDs (for the functional table) or taxa (for the OTU table). The new output section of the manuscript now specifies this. The taxonomic table does include the broader taxonomic paths. 8. Table 1 - is the ordering of the table correct - the map reads step is near the end - but the description places it earlier Fixed 9. Github Repo - the main output is the Taxon output which is described very briefly on the GitHub repo as Level 1/2/3 Kegg Brite Hierarchical count (not mention of Koala) - can the specific output format be described in more detail - perhaps and example output file(s) from a given metagenomics set be provided We have added substantially more information about the outputs in the manuscript and the documentation. See this link for the documentation: https://parkvilledata.github.io/MetaGenePipe/workflow.html#output |
@editorialbot set 1.1.5 as version |
Done! version is now 1.1.5 |
@editorialbot recommend-accept |
|
|
👋 @openjournals/bcm-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published. Check final proof 👉📄 Download article If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#3949, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command |
@jmschrei The final proof looks good to me. Thanks! |
@jmschrei : not sure if you need me to also confirm as corresponding author, but all looks good. Thank you so much for your patience! |
I'm sorry @mariadelmarq, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only eics are allowed to do. |
Sorry for the confusion. The next step is for the EiC to review everything, potentially ask for minor administrative changes, and then accept the paper. |
Sorry for the delay here folks. Accepting and publishing now... |
@editorialbot accept |
|
🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦 |
🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘 |
🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨 Here's what you must now do:
Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team... |
@Ebedthan, @rjorton – many thanks for your reviews here and to @jmschrei for editing this submission! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you ✨ @ParkvilleData – your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS ⚡🚀💥 |
🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉 If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:
This is how it will look in your documentation: We need your help! The Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:
|
@editorialbot reaccept |
|
🌈 Paper updated! New PDF and metadata files 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#4137 |
Submitting author: @ParkvilleData (Babak Shaban)
Repository: https://github.com/ParkvilleData/MetaGenePipe/
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 1.1.5
Editor: @jmschrei
Reviewers: @Ebedthan, @rjorton
Archive: 10.26188/22032425
Status
Status badge code:
Reviewers and authors:
Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)
Reviewer instructions & questions
@Ebedthan & @rjorton, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @jmschrei know.
✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨
Checklists
📝 Checklist for @Ebedthan
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: