Benchmarking ARG Databases: A Comprehensive Guide to Coverage, Accuracy, and Selection for Antimicrobial Resistance Research

Abstract

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a critical global health threat, making the accurate identification of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) paramount for surveillance and intervention. This article provides a systematic framework for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals to evaluate and select ARG databases and computational tools. We explore the foundational landscape of manually curated and consolidated databases, detail methodological approaches for assembly-based and read-based analysis, address common troubleshooting and optimization challenges, and establish robust protocols for the validation and comparative benchmarking of resources. Our goal is to empower users with the knowledge to make informed decisions, enhancing the accuracy and reliability of AMR-related research and clinical applications.

The ARG Database Landscape: Navigating Curated Repositories and Consolidated Resources for AMR Research

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) represents one of the most pressing global public health threats of this century, with bacterial AMR alone associated with an estimated 4.95 million deaths globally in 2019 and projected to cause 10 million deaths annually by 2050 [1]. The core of this crisis lies in the rapid proliferation and dissemination of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs), which undermine the efficacy of existing treatments and threaten decades of medical progress [2]. The gravity of the AMR situation is underscored by the World Health Organization's declaration of AMR as one of the top ten threats to global public health, necessitating comprehensive surveillance and research through systems like the Global Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (GLASS) [3].

The accurate detection and identification of ARGs is fundamental to combating this crisis. ARGs confer resistance through various mechanisms, including direct drug inactivation, reduced drug uptake, target modification, and increased drug efflux [4]. These genes can be intrinsic or acquired through horizontal gene transfer via mobile genetic elements (MGEs), enabling rapid dissemination across bacterial populations and even between different bacterial species [5]. The fight against AMR must be given critical attention to avert the current and emerging crisis of treating bacterial infections due to the inefficacy of clinically relevant antibiotics [4]. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of ARG detection methodologies and databases, offering researchers evidence-based insights for selecting appropriate tools to advance AMR surveillance, research, and drug development.

Methodologies for ARG Detection: A Comparative Analysis

Sequencing-Based Detection Approaches

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies have revolutionized AMR surveillance across clinical, agricultural, and environmental settings, enabling researchers to analyze ARGs from both bacterial whole genomes and complex metagenomic datasets [2] [6]. Depending on research objectives, ARGs can be identified from assembled contigs or directly from raw sequencing reads, with each approach offering distinct advantages and limitations [2].

Table 1: Comparison of Primary ARG Detection Methodologies

Method	Principle	Advantages	Limitations	Best Applications
qPCR	Amplifies and quantifies specific DNA targets using gene-specific primers and probes	High sensitivity (~1 gene copy/105-107 genomes); Quantitative results; Rapid processing [3] [5]	Limited to predefined targets; Cannot discover novel ARGs; No context information (MGEs, hosts) [5]	Targeted surveillance; High-sensitivity quantification in low-biomass samples [3]
Metagenomic Sequencing (MGS)	High-throughput sequencing of all DNA in a sample	Comprehensive resistome profile; Can detect novel ARGs; Provides contextual information [3] [2]	Lower sensitivity (~1 gene copy/103 genomes); Higher cost; Complex data analysis [3] [5]	Exploratory studies; Resistome characterization; Detection of novel ARGs [3] [2]
Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS)	Comprehensive sequencing of individual bacterial isolates	Complete genomic context; Identifies chromosomal mutations and plasmid locations; High accuracy for characterized organisms [6]	Requires bacterial isolation and culture; More resource-intensive per isolate	Outbreak investigation; Mechanism study; Reference data generation [6]

The choice between these methods involves important trade-offs. A 2025 comparative study of qPCR and metagenomic sequencing for wastewater analysis demonstrated that qPCR was more sensitive in diluted samples with low ARG concentrations, while MGS provided greater specificity in concentrated samples and could distinguish multiple gene subtypes that qPCR could not [3]. This has significant implications for the conclusions drawn when comparing different sample types, particularly in inferring removal rates or origins of genes [3].

Experimental Workflow for ARG Detection

The following diagram illustrates a generalized experimental workflow for ARG detection from sample collection to data analysis, integrating both genomic and metagenomic approaches:

Figure 1: Generalized Workflow for ARG Detection from Samples

The Role of Artificial Intelligence in ARG Detection

Artificial intelligence, particularly machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), is increasingly applied to overcome limitations of traditional alignment-based methods [4]. Traditional methods for identifying ARGs from NGS data, which consist of mapping reads directly to a reference genome or assembling reads into contigs before comparison to reference databases, cannot identify novel ARG sequences and are often limited by false negative and false positive results [4]. AI models can now identify ARGs directly from short NGS raw reads or fully assembled genes, with some models achieving metrics comparable to strict alignment methods [4].

Common AI approaches for ARG detection include:

• Direct classification of ARGs from sequence data using support vector machines (SVM), neural networks, and Hidden Markov Models (HMM) [4]
• Feature selection methods using eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and random forest (RF) to identify potential ARGs [4]
• Plasmid sequence identification using deep learning, SVM, and RF to detect mobile genetic elements that facilitate ARG transfer [4]

These AI approaches demonstrate particular utility for identifying novel ARG variants that evade detection by traditional homology-based methods and for predicting resistance phenotypes from genotypic data [1].

Benchmarking ARG Databases: Coverage and Accuracy Assessment

Comparative Analysis of Major ARG Databases

The performance of ARG detection pipelines heavily depends on the databases used for annotation. A 2025 comparative assessment of annotation tools highlighted critical differences in database structures, curation methodologies, and coverage of resistance determinants [7]. Researchers evaluated eight commonly used annotation tools applied to assembled genomes of Klebsiella pneumoniae, a genomically diverse pathogen that plays a pivotal role in amplifying and shuttling resistance genes across Enterobacteriaceae [7].

Table 2: Comparison of Major ARG Databases and Annotation Tools

Database/Tool	Curation Approach	Key Features	Strengths	Limitations
CARD [2]	Manually curated with strict inclusion criteria	Antibiotic Resistance Ontology (ARO); Requires experimental validation; RGI tool [2]	High-quality, accurate data; Detailed mechanism information [2]	Slow updates due to manual curation; May miss emerging genes [2]
ResFinder/ PointFinder [2]	Initially based on Lahey Clinic β-Lactamase Database	K-mer-based alignment; Integrated gene and mutation detection; Phenotype prediction tables [2]	Rapid analysis from raw reads; Unified framework [2]	Limited to acquired genes and specific mutations [2]
AMRFinderPlus [8] [7]	NCBI curated Reference Gene Database	Protein-based search; HMM searches; Point mutation detection; Curated cutoffs [8]	Comprehensive coverage; Detects point mutations [7]	Complex implementation for some users [7]
DeepARG [7] [2]	Includes predicted ARGs with high confidence	Machine learning-based; Designed to uncover novel ARGs [2]	Identifies novel/low-abundance ARGs [2]	Potential inclusion of non-functional genes [7]

The differences in database curation significantly impact detection outcomes. For example, the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD) employs strict inclusion criteria requiring that all ARG sequences be deposited in GenBank, demonstrate an increase in Minimal Inhibitory Concentration validated through experimental studies, and have results published in peer-reviewed journals [2]. In contrast, consolidated databases like NDARO integrate data from multiple sources, offering broad coverage but facing challenges with consistency and redundancy [2].

Performance Benchmarking of Annotation Tools

A comprehensive study comparing annotation tools on Klebsiella pneumoniae genomes revealed substantial variation in tool performance across different antibiotic classes [7]. Researchers built "minimal models" of resistance using only known markers to identify where known mechanisms do not fully account for observed resistance variation, thereby highlighting opportunities for novel marker discovery [7].

The performance of two predictive models was compared when using generated marker subsets as features: logistic regression with L1 and L2 regularization (Elastic Net) and the Extreme Gradient Boosted ensemble model (XGBoost) [7]. These minimal models demonstrated that for some antibiotics, known resistance determinants do not fully account for observed phenotypic resistance, highlighting significant knowledge gaps and the need for discovery of new AMR mechanisms or variants [7].

Database Selection Framework

The following diagram illustrates the decision process for selecting appropriate ARG databases and tools based on research objectives:

Figure 2: Database Selection Framework for ARG Detection

Advanced Considerations in ARG Detection

Incorporating Mobility and Host Context

A critical advancement in ARG detection is the integration of mobility potential into risk assessment. Current environmental surveillance often overlooks the significance of ARG mobility, limiting risk assessment accuracy [5]. The association of ARGs with mobile genetic elements (MGEs), particularly plasmids, significantly increases dissemination potential and clinical risk [5].

A proposed framework for ranking ARG risk incorporates four key indicators:

• Circulation: Whether the ARG is shared between different One Health settings and shows increased abundance due to human activities
• Mobility: Whether the ARG has been reported on MGEs that increase transfer likelihood to pathogens
• Pathogenicity: Whether the ARG has been found in human or animal pathogens
• Clinical relevance: Whether the ARG has been related to worsened treatment outcomes [5]

This framework allows assigning risk ranks to individual ARGs, enabling more targeted surveillance and intervention strategies [5].

Methodological Advances in Mobility Detection

Recent methodological advances enhance our ability to detect ARG mobility:

• Long-read sequencing technologies (Oxford Nanopore, PacBio) enable complete assembly of MGEs, providing full context of ARG locations [5]
• Hybrid assembly approaches combining short-read and long-read data improve contiguity and resolution of genetic context [5]
• PCR-based genotype association assays that link ARGs with specific MGEs [5]
• Improved bioinformatic pipelines that allow contig-based analysis of ARG-MGE associations [5]

These advances are reaching the quantitative and qualitative information necessary to characterize ARGs and their observable mobility at the level required for effective integration into quantitative microbial risk assessments (QMRA) [5].

Essential Research Reagents and Tools

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for ARG Detection Workflows

Category	Specific Products/Tools	Function	Application Context
DNA Extraction Kits	PowerSoilPro DNA Extraction Kit (Qiagen) [3]	Extracts high-quality DNA from complex samples	Environmental samples, wastewater [3]
Library Prep Kits	TruSeq Nano DNA Library Prep kit (Illumina) [3]	Prepares sequencing libraries from extracted DNA	Whole genome sequencing, metagenomics [3]
Targeted Enrichment	AmpliSeq for Illumina Antimicrobial Resistance Panel [6]	Targets 478 AMR genes across 28 antibiotic classes	Focused resistance profiling [6]
Sequencing Platforms	Illumina NovaSeq6000 [3]	High-throughput sequencing	Large-scale genomic and metagenomic studies [3]
Bioinformatics Tools	AMRFinderPlus [8], RGI [2], DeepARG [2]	Identifies ARGs from sequence data	Various research and surveillance applications [8] [2]
Analysis Pipelines	Kleborate [7]	Species-specific annotation for K. pneumoniae	Pathogen-focused surveillance [7]
Reference Databases	CARD [2], ResFinder [2], NDARO [2]	Curated collections of known ARGs	Reference-based annotation [2]

The accurate detection of antibiotic resistance genes is fundamental to addressing the global AMR burden. As the field advances, integrated approaches that combine multiple databases, leverage artificial intelligence, and incorporate mobility context will provide the most comprehensive understanding of resistance threats. The choice of detection methodology and database should be guided by specific research objectives, whether focused on clinical diagnostics, environmental surveillance, or novel gene discovery.

Future directions in ARG detection will likely involve greater integration of machine learning approaches, improved real-time surveillance capabilities, and enhanced frameworks for risk assessment that incorporate both abundance and mobility potential of resistance genes. By selecting appropriate tools and methodologies from the growing arsenal of ARG detection resources, researchers and public health professionals can contribute to more effective monitoring and mitigation of the global AMR crisis.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) represents one of the most severe global health threats, with resistant infections contributing significantly to mortality and treatment failures worldwide [9]. The genetic basis of antibiotic resistance is complex, arising from both acquired resistance genes and chromosomal mutations, which spread through microbial populations via horizontal gene transfer and other mechanisms [10] [11]. In silico analysis of whole-genome sequencing data has become indispensable for identifying antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs), surpassing traditional phenotypic methods in speed and discriminatory power [12]. This analytical approach depends fundamentally on comprehensive, high-quality reference databases.

Among the various resources available, manually curated databases distinguish themselves through rigorous quality control and expert validation. The Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD) and ResFinder/PointFinder system represent two leading examples of such resources, each with distinct curation philosophies and structural frameworks [10] [11]. While CARD employs an ontology-driven approach with strict evidence requirements, ResFinder focuses on acquired resistance genes and species-specific mutations with specialized detection algorithms [11] [7]. Understanding their comparative strengths and limitations is essential for researchers selecting appropriate tools for AMR surveillance, clinical diagnostics, and mechanistic studies.

Structural Frameworks and Curation Methodologies

CARD: An Ontology-Driven Knowledgebase

The Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database employs a sophisticated structural framework centered around the Antibiotic Resistance Ontology (ARO), which systematically classifies resistance determinants, mechanisms, and antibiotic molecules [11] [13]. This ontological organization enables sophisticated computational analyses and relationship mapping between different resistance elements. CARD's curation process mandates that all included ARG sequences must be deposited in GenBank, demonstrate an experimentally validated increase in Minimal Inhibitory Concentration (MIC), and be published in peer-reviewed literature, with only limited exceptions for historical β-lactam antibiotics [11].

A critical feature of CARD is its use of specific BLASTP alignment bit-score thresholds for each ARG type, recognizing that different gene families exhibit varying degrees of sequence conservation [14]. This approach contrasts with databases that apply uniform identity or coverage thresholds across all genes. Additionally, CARD incorporates a "Resistomes & Variants" module containing in silico-validated ARGs derived from sequences in the main database, extending its coverage while maintaining quality standards [11]. The curation process combines expert manual review with machine learning tools like CARD*Shark, which prioritizes relevant publications to ensure timely updates [11].

ResFinder/PointFinder: Specialized Detection of Acquired Genes and Mutations

The ResFinder and PointFinder system employs a more focused approach, with ResFinder specializing in acquired antimicrobial resistance genes and PointFinder targeting chromosomal point mutations conferring resistance in specific bacterial species [11]. Originally based on the Lahey Clinic β-Lactamase Database, ARDB, and extensive literature review, ResFinder has evolved to implement a K-mer-based alignment algorithm that enables rapid analysis directly from raw sequencing reads without requiring de novo assembly [11].

ResFinder's curation strategy emphasizes practical utility for public health and clinical applications, with particular attention to genes and mutations with demonstrated clinical relevance [7]. The integration of ResFinder and PointFinder under a unified framework in ResFinder 4.0 has streamlined the user experience while maintaining their specialized functions. The database also includes phenotype prediction tables that link genetic information to potential resistance traits, enhancing its translational applicability [11].

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of CARD and ResFinder/PointFinder

Characteristic	CARD	ResFinder/PointFinder
Primary Focus	Ontology-based comprehensive resistance	Acquired genes & species-specific mutations
Curation Standard	Experimental MIC increase + publication	Clinical relevance & literature support
Structural Framework	Antibiotic Resistance Ontology (ARO)	Gene-centric & mutation-centric modules
Update Mechanism	Manual curation + CARD*Shark ML	Regular updates with community input
Inclusion Criteria	Strict experimental validation	Clinical and epidemiological relevance
Coverage Scope	Broad, including intrinsic & acquired	Focused on acquired resistance

Comparative Database Content Analysis

Gene Coverage and Taxonomic Range

Independent analyses reveal significant differences in the content and coverage between CARD and ResFinder. As of 2024, CARD encompasses 6,627 ontology terms, 5,010 reference sequences, 1,933 mutations, and 5,057 AMR detection models [13]. The database includes resistome predictions and prevalence statistics for 377 pathogens, 21,079 chromosomes, 2,662 genomic islands, 41,828 plasmids, and 155,606 whole-genome shotgun assemblies, collating 322,710 unique ARG allele sequences [13].

In comparison, ResFinder's database contains approximately 3,150 alleles according to recent analyses [12]. When ResFinder is combined with the Reference Gene Catalog, the collection includes 7,168 unique AMR gene alleles [12]. A merged dataset incorporating CARD, ResFinder, and the Reference Gene Catalog yields 7,588 distinct AMR gene alleles, suggesting significant but not complete overlap between these resources [12].

The taxonomic specificity of these databases also differs substantially. While CARD aims for broad coverage across diverse bacterial species, ResFinder and particularly PointFinder focus on clinically relevant pathogens with species-specific mutation databases [11] [7]. This makes ResFinder/PointFinder particularly valuable for clinical diagnostics of priority pathogens, while CARD's ontological structure supports more fundamental research into resistance mechanisms across taxonomic boundaries.

Mutation Detection Capabilities

A critical distinction between these databases lies in their approach to mutation-based resistance. CARD includes 1,933 resistance-conferring mutations curated within its ontological framework [13]. Recent expansions have incorporated likelihood-based AMR mutations for Mycobacterium tuberculosis and systematic curation of resistance-modifying agents [13].

PointFinder specializes in detecting chromosomal point mutations in specific bacterial species, providing detailed insights into resistance mechanisms at a finer genomic scale [11]. This specialized focus enables more sensitive detection of mutation-driven resistance in well-characterized pathogens. The integration between ResFinder and PointFinder allows comprehensive analysis that spans both acquired genes and chromosomal mutations in a single analytical workflow.

Table 2: Content Comparison Between CARD and ResFinder/PointFinder

Content Category	CARD	ResFinder/PointFinder
Reference Sequences	5,010	~3,150
Unique ARG Alleles	Part of 322,710 collated alleles	7,168 (combined with Reference Gene Catalog)
Resistance Mutations	1,933	Specialized via PointFinder
Bacterial Species Coverage	377 pathogens	Focused on clinically relevant species
Mobile Genetic Elements	Included in resistome predictions	Limited direct annotation
rRNA Mutation Analysis	Limited	Not specialized

Performance Benchmarking and Experimental Assessment

Methodologies for Database Evaluation

Robust benchmarking of ARG databases requires standardized methodologies and datasets. Recent studies have employed several approaches to evaluate database performance:

Minimal Model Machine Learning: One innovative approach involves building "minimal models" of resistance using only known markers from each database to predict binary resistance phenotypes [7]. These models utilize presence/absence matrices of AMR features (X_p×n ∈ {0,1}) annotated by each tool, with performance metrics indicating the comprehensiveness of database coverage for specific pathogens and antibiotic classes.

Comparative Annotation Analysis: Studies have applied multiple annotation tools to the same set of bacterial genomes, then compared the concordance and discordance between results. One such analysis of Klebsiella pneumoniae genomes utilized eight annotation tools (Kleborate, ResFinder, AMRFinderPlus, DeepARG, RGI, SraX, Abricate, and StarAMR) to annotate the same set of 18,645 samples, excluding outliers and contaminants [7].

Precision-Recall Metrics: Performance is quantified using standard classification metrics, with particular emphasis on recall (sensitivity) for detecting known resistance determinants and precision in avoiding false positives [7] [15]. These metrics are especially important for clinical applications where false negatives have serious implications.

Key Findings from Experimental Comparisons

Independent benchmarking studies have revealed several important patterns in database performance:

A comprehensive assessment using Klebsiella pneumoniae genomes found that even minimal models using known resistance markers could achieve high predictive accuracy for some antibiotic classes, but performance varied significantly depending on the annotation tool and underlying database [7]. The study demonstrated that tool selection substantially impacts downstream predictive performance, with some tools exhibiting higher sensitivity for specific resistance mechanisms.

Research on database content structure has identified challenges with coherence in classification models. One analysis of CARD identified instances where the database's bit-score threshold approach could lead to classifications that contradict best BLAST hits, particularly in gene families with heterogeneous sequence conservation like RND efflux pumps [14]. For example, MexF sequences from the SARG database were classified as adeF by CARD's model due to differential threshold stringency, despite MexF being the best BLAST hit [14].

Emerging hybrid approaches like ProtAlign-ARG, which combine protein language models with alignment-based scoring, have demonstrated superior recall compared to traditional methods, particularly for novel or divergent ARG variants [15]. This suggests opportunities for enhancing manually curated databases with machine learning methods.

Table 3: Experimental Performance Metrics from Benchmarking Studies

Performance Aspect	CARD	ResFinder/PointFinder
Recall for Known Genes	High for validated sequences	High for targeted pathogens
Novel Variant Detection	Limited by curation	Limited by reference set
Clinical Concordance	Varies by pathogen	Generally high for focused species
Computational Efficiency	Moderate	High (K-mer based approach)
False Positive Rate	Low due to strict thresholds	Low for targeted mechanisms
Mobile Genetic Element Context	Limited	Limited

Research Reagent Solutions: Essential Materials for ARG Detection

Successful antibiotic resistance gene detection requires specific computational tools and resources. The following research reagents represent essential components for conducting comprehensive ARG analysis:

• CARD Database and RGI Tool: The Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database with its Resistance Gene Identifier software provides ontology-based ARG detection with curated bit-score thresholds for precise identification [11] [13].

• ResFinder/PointFinder Platform: This integrated web service specializes in identifying acquired resistance genes and chromosomal mutations in bacterial pathogens using K-mer based alignment for rapid analysis [11].

• AmrProfiler Web Server: A recently developed open-access tool that integrates data from ResFinder, Reference Gene Catalog, and CARD databases, providing comprehensive AMR gene, mutation, and rRNA gene analysis across approximately 18,000 bacterial species [12].

• Reference Gene Catalog: Maintained by NCBI, this database contains 6,637 AMR gene alleles and serves as a key resource for tools like AMRFinderPlus [12].

• Hybrid Method Tools: Resources like ProtAlign-ARG that combine protein language models with alignment-based scoring to enhance detection of novel variants that may be missed by traditional methods [15].

Workflow and Signaling Pathways in ARG Analysis

The analytical process for antibiotic resistance gene detection follows a structured workflow that integrates laboratory and computational components. The following diagram illustrates the key steps in ARG identification and analysis:

ARG Analysis Workflow

The molecular mechanisms of antibiotic resistance follow specific signaling and functional pathways that can be categorized into major mechanistic classes:

Resistance Mechanism Classification

Implications for Clinical and Research Applications

The selection between CARD and ResFinder/PointFinder has significant implications for different application scenarios:

Clinical Diagnostics and Public Health: For routine clinical surveillance of known pathogens, ResFinder/PointFinder offers advantages in speed and clinical relevance, particularly for species with well-characterized mutation profiles [11] [7]. The K-mer based approach enables rapid analysis directly from sequencing reads, potentially reducing time-to-result in clinical settings.

Research and Discovery Applications: CARD's ontological structure and broader coverage make it more suitable for fundamental research into resistance mechanisms, particularly when studying less-characterized species or exploring novel resistance determinants [11] [13]. The structured ontology supports more sophisticated computational analyses and relationship mapping.

Environmental and Metagenomic Studies: For environmental resistome characterization, where diverse and novel resistance elements may be encountered, CARD's comprehensive coverage provides advantages, though approaches that combine multiple databases may offer the most complete assessment [10] [11].

Agricultural and Veterinary Applications: Both databases have utility in agricultural settings, with selection depending on the specific pathogens and resistance mechanisms of interest. The integration of CARD with machine learning approaches shows promise for predicting emergent resistance threats in agricultural environments [9] [11].

Manual curation remains the foundation of high-quality antibiotic resistance gene databases, ensuring accuracy and reliability for critical applications in clinical medicine and public health. Both CARD and ResFinder/PointFinder represent exemplary models of rigorous curation, though with distinct philosophical approaches and structural implementations. CARD's ontology-driven framework offers comprehensive coverage and sophisticated classification capabilities, while ResFinder/PointFinder provides optimized detection for clinically relevant determinants with efficient computational methods.

Future developments in ARG database curation will likely involve hybrid approaches that combine the reliability of manual curation with the scalability of computational methods [11] [15]. Integration of protein language models and deep learning may enhance the detection of novel variants while maintaining standards of evidence [15]. Additionally, greater emphasis on metadata standardization and interoperability between databases will support more comprehensive resistome analysis and machine learning applications.

The continued evolution of these resources will play a crucial role in addressing the ongoing challenge of antimicrobial resistance, supporting both clinical decision-making and fundamental research into the mechanisms and spread of resistance determinants across clinical, agricultural, and environmental settings.

The accurate identification of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) is a critical component in the global fight against antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Bioinformatics analyses for ARG detection universally rely on specialized databases, which can be broadly categorized as either manually curated or consolidated [2]. Manually curated databases, such as the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD), prioritize high-quality, expert-validated data through strict inclusion criteria. In contrast, consolidated databases aggregate content from multiple pre-existing sources and public repositories to maximize sequence coverage and diversity [2] [16]. This guide provides an objective comparison of three prominent consolidated databases—NDARO, SARG, and ARGminer—evaluating their scope, structure, and performance within the context of ARG detection and benchmarking research.

The following table summarizes the core attributes and founding principles of NDARO, SARG, and ARGminer.

Table 1: Core Characteristics of NDARO, SARG, and ARGminer

Database	Primary Curation Approach	Source Databases	Key Design Focus
NDARO	Consolidated	CARD, Lahey β-lactamase, ResFinder, Pasteur Institute β-lactamases [16]	A comprehensive collection designed to support AMR research and identification [16].
SARG	Consolidated with a hierarchical structure	ARDB, CARD, NCBI-NR [17] [16]	Expanding coverage for environmental resistome profiling, particularly with metagenomic data [17].
ARGminer	Consolidated	Information not available in search results	Information not available in search results

Comparative Analysis of Database Scope and Content

The utility of a database is largely determined by the breadth and organization of its data. A direct comparison of content and structure reveals the distinct profiles of each resource.

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Database Scope and Content

Feature	NDARO	SARG (Structured ARG Database)	ARGminer
Sequence Volume	~4,500 resistance gene sequences [16]	>12,000 resistance genes (SARG v2) [16]	Information not available
Taxonomic Scope	General (broad-spectrum)	General (broad-spectrum)	Information not available
Metadata & Ontology	Integrated from source databases [16]	Hierarchical structure (Type/Subtype/Sequence) [17]	Information not available
Strengths	Compiles data from several authoritative sources [16]	High coverage useful for metagenomic studies; reduces identity-based underestimation [17]	Information not available
Limitations	Potential challenges with consistency and redundancy common to consolidated databases [2]	Requires careful parsing of its unique hierarchy [17]	Information not available

Experimental Protocols for Database Benchmarking

To ensure fair and informative comparisons between ARG databases, researchers must employ standardized experimental protocols. The following workflow, derived from contemporary benchmarking studies, outlines a robust methodology for assessing database performance [17] [18].

Diagram 1: Database Benchmarking Workflow

Benchmark Dataset Curation

The first step involves assembling a high-quality dataset with a known ARG content to serve as the ground truth.

• Use Defined Mock Communities: Sequencing defined mock communities of bacterial isolates with known resistomes allows for precise accuracy calculations [17].
• Leverage Real-World Datasets with Validation: Large public repository data (e.g., from BV-BRC) with accompanying phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) can be used. Samples should be filtered for high-quality assemblies and reliable phenotype labels [18].

In Silico Sequence Analysis

This step involves processing the benchmark dataset against the target databases.

• Tool and Parameter Consistency: Annotation should be performed using the same bioinformatics tool (e.g., AMRFinderPlus, RGI) where possible, with parameters standardized to ensure comparisons reflect database content, not tool performance [18].
• Application of "Minimal Models": For genotype-phenotype predictions, a "minimal model" can be built using only the presence/absence of resistance markers from each database. This tests how well each database's known determinants explain observed resistance [18].

Performance Metrics Calculation

The output annotations are compared against the ground truth to compute standard performance metrics.

• Sensitivity (Recall): The proportion of true positive ARGs correctly identified.
• Specificity: The proportion of true negative sequences correctly excluded.
• Precision: The proportion of identified ARGs that are true positives.
• Concordance: The overall agreement between genotype-based prediction and phenotypic AST results when applicable [18] [19].

Context and Mobility Analysis

Advanced benchmarking may involve evaluating the ability to contextualize ARGs.

• Host Tracking: Using tools like Argo with long-read data to assess if databases enable correct taxonomic assignment of ARG hosts [17].
• Genomic Context Profiling: Using tools like ARGContextProfiler to investigate if ARGs from these databases are found in contigs with mobile genetic elements, providing insight into dissemination risk [20].

The experimental workflow relies on a suite of bioinformatics tools and resources.

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Resources for ARG Database Benchmarking

Category	Item/Resource	Function in Experiment
Reference Datasets	BV-BRC Public Database [18]	Provides access to thousands of bacterial genomes with associated phenotypic AST data for benchmarking.
	Defined Mock Communities [17]	Synthetic microbial community samples with known composition and ARG content, serving as a ground truth for sensitivity/accuracy tests.
Bioinformatics Tools	AMRFinderPlus [18]	A versatile command-line tool for identifying ARGs and resistance mutations in bacterial genomes.
	Resistance Gene Identifier (RGI) [2] [16]	A tool that uses the CARD database and curated models to predict ARGs from DNA sequences.
	DIAMOND [17]	A high-throughput sequence alignment tool for comparing sequencing reads or contigs against protein reference databases.
	Argo [17]	A specialized tool for profiling ARGs and identifying their microbial hosts from long-read metagenomic data.
	ARGContextProfiler [20]	A pipeline for extracting and visualizing the genomic context (e.g., chromosomal, plasmid) of ARGs from assembly graphs.
Computational Resources	High-Performance Computing (HPC) Cluster	Essential for processing large whole-genome and metagenomic sequencing datasets in a feasible time.

NDARO, SARG, and ARGminer represent the consolidated approach to ARG database construction, offering broad coverage by integrating multiple sources. NDARO leverages authoritative sources to create a comprehensive resource, while SARG's expanded and hierarchically structured content is particularly geared toward environmental metagenomics. The choice between them is not a matter of which is universally superior, but which is most fit-for-purpose. NDARO may be preferred for clinical isolate screening where its source databases are well-established, whereas SARG's design offers advantages in detecting a wider array of resistance determinants in complex environmental samples. Ultimately, informed database selection, guided by rigorous and standardized benchmarking protocols as outlined in this guide, is fundamental to generating accurate, reproducible, and biologically meaningful insights into the resistome.

The rapid evolution and global spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) represent one of the most pressing public health challenges of our time, with antibiotic-resistant pathogens estimated to cause over 1.27 million deaths annually worldwide [10]. Antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) serve as molecular surrogates for tracking this crisis, making their accurate identification fundamental to surveillance, research, and mitigation efforts [2]. The advent of high-throughput sequencing has enabled widespread ARG profiling, yet the performance of these analyses is fundamentally constrained by the choice of reference database [10] [21]. Significant variability exists in database structures, curation methodologies, annotation depth, and coverage of resistance determinants, directly influencing ARG detection outcomes and the validity of subsequent conclusions [2]. This comparison guide provides an objective assessment of major ARG databases, framing the evaluation within the broader context of benchmarking for coverage and accuracy assessment research. It is designed to assist researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals in selecting the most appropriate database for their specific research context, whether for routine clinical surveillance, exploratory resistome characterization, or the development of novel computational tools.

Comparative Analysis of Major ARG Databases

Database Structures and Classification Systems

ARG databases employ fundamentally different organizational architectures, which directly impact their usability and the type of analyses they support. The Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD) utilizes a rigorous ontological framework known as the Antibiotic Resistance Ontology (ARO) [2]. This structure classifies resistance determinants, mechanisms, and antibiotic molecules into a logical hierarchy, enabling detailed mechanistic insights and sophisticated data integration [2]. In contrast, the Structured Antibiotic Resistance Gene (SARG) database is organized in a tree-like dictionary structure, which has been enhanced in its latest version (SARG v3.0) to improve annotation reliability and provide clear mechanistic classifications [22]. ResFinder and its integrated mutation-focused counterpart, PointFinder, employ a more targeted structure, specializing in acquired AMR genes and species-specific chromosomal point mutations, respectively [2]. Newer, consolidated databases like the Non-redundant Comprehensive Database (NCRD) and HMD-ARG-DB represent a different structural approach. NCRD was created by integrating and clustering sequences from multiple source databases (ARDB, CARD, SARG) to minimize redundancy and maximize coverage [21], while HMD-ARG-DB aggregates data from seven published databases and labels sequences from multiple perspectives—antibiotic class, resistance mechanism, and gene mobility—creating a multi-label database suitable for advanced machine learning applications [23].

Curation Methodologies and Update Frequency

The curation philosophy and update frequency of a database are primary determinants of its content quality and relevance. As summarized in Table 1, databases can be broadly categorized as manually curated or consolidated.

CARD employs a strict manual curation process where sequences must be deposited in GenBank, demonstrate an experimentally validated increase in Minimal Inhibitory Concentration (MIC), and be published in peer-reviewed literature [2]. This process, supported by tools like CARD*Shark to prioritize relevant publications, ensures high-quality annotations but may limit the inclusion of emerging, unvalidated genes [2]. ResFinder/PointFinder also relies on expert curation, initially drawing from specialized databases like the Lahey Clinic β-Lactamase Database and extensive literature review [2].

In contrast, consolidated databases prioritize comprehensive coverage. NCRD and its precursor NRD are built by integrating sequences from ARDB, CARD, and SARG, followed by clustering to remove redundancy and identification of homologous sequences from the Non-redundant Protein (NR) and Protein DataBank (PDB) databases [21]. HMD-ARG-DB follows a similar approach, aggregating and cleaning sequences from seven source databases followed by manual labeling of multiple attributes [23]. ARGminer represents a hybrid approach, using an ensemble of multiple databases combined with a crowdsourcing model and machine learning to refine gene nomenclature [10].

Update frequency is a critical differentiator. While CARD and ResFinder are actively maintained, legacy databases like ARDB have been archived and not updated since 2009, meaning they lack recently discovered ARGs such as NDM-1 and mcr-1 [10] [21].

Annotation Depth and Metadata

The depth of annotation and the richness of associated metadata vary considerably across databases, influencing their utility for advanced analytical purposes. CARD provides extensive metadata through its ARO framework, including detailed resistance mechanisms, associated antibiotics, and target organisms [2]. HMD-ARG-DB offers uniquely multi-dimensional annotations, categorizing genes by the antibiotic family they confer resistance to, their biochemical mechanism (e.g., efflux, inactivation, target alteration), and their mobility (intrinsic or acquired) [23]. This multi-task labeling enables researchers to investigate correlations between genetic determinants, resistance phenotypes, and transmission potential.

Other databases provide more focused annotations. ResFinder specializes in cataloging acquired resistance genes by antimicrobial class, while PointFinder focuses exclusively on chromosomal point mutations known to confer resistance in specific bacterial species [2]. SARG provides a hierarchical classification of ARGs but has been noted to contain a more limited set of selected reference sequences compared to comprehensive databases [21]. The depth of annotation is often a trade-off against database size and curation speed, with broadly consolidated databases like NCRD sometimes providing less detailed mechanistic metadata in favor of greater sequence coverage [21].

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics and Curation Approaches of Major ARG Databases

Database	Primary Curation Approach	Last Update (as of 2025)	Sequence Count (Approx.)	Key Structural Features
CARD [2]	Manual Curation with Expert Validation	2021 (Active)	2,498 Reference Sequences	Antibiotic Resistance Ontology (ARO)
ResFinder/PointFinder [2]	Manual Curation from Literature & Specialist DBs	2021 (Active)	Not Explicitly Stated	Integrated framework for acquired genes & mutations
SARG [22] [21]	Semi-automated Curation & Structuring	2019	4,246 (v2.0)	Tree-like hierarchical structure
NCRD [21]	Consolidated & Clustered from multiple DBs	2023	710,231 (NCRD); 34,008 (NCRD95)	Non-redundant clusters from ARDB, CARD, SARG
HMD-ARG-DB [23]	Consolidated & Manually Labeled from 7 DBs	2021	17,282	Multi-label annotations (Class, Mechanism, Mobility)
ARGminer [10]	Ensemble & Crowdsourced	2019	Not Explicitly Stated	Machine learning for nomenclature harmonization
ARDB [10] [21]	Manual Curation (Legacy)	2009 (Archived)	13,293	Flat-file structure (Historically significant)

Experimental Benchmarking: Methodologies and Performance

Benchmarking Protocols and Workflows

To objectively assess the performance of different databases and the tools that rely on them, researchers have developed standardized benchmarking protocols. A prominent approach involves the construction of "minimal models" that predict antimicrobial resistance phenotypes using only known genetic markers from annotation tools [7]. The general workflow for such a benchmark, as applied to Klebsiella pneumoniae, is visualized below.

Diagram 1: Workflow for ARG Database and Tool Benchmarking

This process begins with the collection of high-quality whole-genome sequences and corresponding experimental antibiotic susceptibility data from public repositories like the Bacterial and Viral Bioinformatics Resource Centre (BV-BRC) [7]. Genomes are annotated using multiple target tools (e.g., AMRFinderPlus, ResFinder, DeepARG), each relying on its respective database, to generate a presence/absence matrix of known resistance markers [7]. Machine learning models (e.g., Logistic Regression with Elastic Net regularization, XGBoost) are then trained on these genetic features to predict binary resistance phenotypes [7]. The performance of these models, measured by metrics such as precision, recall, and F1-score, serves as a proxy for the completeness and predictive utility of the knowledge contained within each database [7]. Underperformance on specific antibiotics highlights knowledge gaps where novel resistance mechanisms may remain undiscovered [7].

An alternative benchmarking strategy involves in silico comparative analysis of database contents and detection capabilities. For instance, the ProtAlign-ARG study utilized the HMD-ARG-DB and the COALA (Collection of All Antibiotic resistance gene databases) dataset as standardized ground truths to evaluate the classification performance of various tools and their underlying databases [24]. Performance is assessed by the ability to correctly identify and classify sequences within these comprehensive datasets, often using metrics like macro-average and weighted-average F1-scores to account for class imbalances [24].

Comparative Performance Data

Empirical benchmarks reveal significant performance variations across annotation tools and their underlying databases. A large-scale assessment using K. pneumoniae genomes and minimal models found that tools like AMRFinderPlus, which incorporates both resistance genes and point mutations, often provide a more robust feature set for accurate phenotype prediction compared to tools relying on narrower databases [7]. The performance gap is particularly pronounced for antibiotics where known resistance mechanisms are insufficient to explain observed phenotypes, highlighting the databases' knowledge gaps [7].

Table 2: Performance Comparison of ARG Identification Tools and Approaches

Tool / Model	Underlying Database(s)	Key Methodology	Reported Performance (Macro F1-Score)	Strengths / Context
ProtAlign-ARG [24]	HMD-ARG-DB	Hybrid (Protein Language Model + Alignment)	0.83 (COALA dataset)	High recall; robust on limited data
Alignment-Scoring (BLAST) [24]	HMD-ARG-DB / COALA	Traditional Sequence Alignment	0.71 - 0.83 (COALA dataset)	High precision with well-curated DBs
DeepARG [24]	DeepARG-DB	Deep Learning (Similarity-based features)	0.73 (COALA dataset)	Detects novel/divergent ARGs
HMD-ARG [23]	HMD-ARG-DB	Deep Learning (End-to-end CNN)	Not Explicitly Stated (Superior to DeepARG)	Predicts class, mechanism, and mobility
ARG-SHINE [24]	COALA (15 DBs)	Machine Learning Ensemble	0.86 (COALA dataset)	Integrates multiple component methods
CARD RGI [2]	CARD	Strict BLASTP with curated thresholds	High Accuracy (Qualitative)	High specificity and data quality
ResFinder [2]	ResFinder DB	K-mer based alignment	Fast (Qualitative)	Rapid analysis from raw reads

Independent evaluations using diverse datasets like COALA, which consolidates sequences from 15 different databases, further illuminate relative strengths. As shown in Table 2, ensemble and machine learning-based tools like ARG-SHINE and the hybrid ProtAlign-ARG often achieve superior macro-average F1-scores, demonstrating their ability to generalize across diverse ARG classes [24]. Traditional alignment-based methods using comprehensive, non-redundant databases (Alignment-Scoring) remain highly competitive, especially when provided with a high-quality reference [24]. The performance of deep learning tools like DeepARG is notable for identifying novel ARGs, though it may be influenced by the database used for its model training [24] [23].

Selecting the appropriate database is often contingent on the specific research question. The following toolkit summarizes key resources and their primary applications to guide researchers.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for ARG Detection and Analysis

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in Research	Ideal Use Case
CARD with RGI [2]	Database & Tool	Provides high-quality, experimentally validated references for ARG annotation.	Clinical AMR surveillance where specificity and data quality are paramount.
ResFinder/PointFinder [2]	Database & Tool	Rapid identification of acquired resistance genes and species-specific mutations.	Outbreak investigation and routine screening for known acquired AMR markers.
HMD-ARG-DB [23]	Database	A large, multi-label database for training and evaluating advanced ML models.	Research focusing on co-occurrence of resistance class, mechanism, and mobility.
NCRD/NRD [21]	Database	A non-redundant, comprehensive sequence collection for maximizing detection sensitivity.	Environmental resistome studies aiming for broadest possible ARG profile coverage.
SARG [22]	Database & Pipeline (OAP)	Structured database with online analysis pipeline for high-throughput metagenomics.	Standardized profiling and comparison of ARGs in large-scale metagenomic projects.
ProtAlign-ARG [24]	Hybrid Tool	Combines deep learning for novel variant detection with alignment for reliable classification.	Discovering and characterizing novel ARG variants with high confidence.
COALA Dataset [24]	Benchmarking Dataset	A consolidated collection from 15 databases, serving as a ground truth for tool evaluation.	Benchmarking the performance of new ARG detection tools or databases.

The landscape of ARG databases is diverse, with no single resource universally superior for all applications. The choice between a rigorously curated database like CARD, a consolidated resource like NCRD, or a multi-dimensional database like HMD-ARG-DB must be guided by the research objective—prioritizing specificity, comprehensive coverage, or rich functional annotation, respectively [2] [21] [23]. Empirical benchmarks consistently show that while traditional alignment-based methods using quality references remain highly accurate, hybrid and machine learning approaches are increasingly powerful for detecting novel variants and providing deeper functional insights [7] [24].

Future developments in the field are likely to focus on several key areas. The adoption of protein language models and other deep learning architectures will enhance the detection of remote homologs and novel resistance determinants not yet captured in current databases [24]. Furthermore, there is a growing need for standardized benchmarking datasets and protocols to enable fair and reproducible comparisons between existing and emerging tools [7] [24]. Finally, as the volume of data grows, the development of specialized sub-databases for different application scenarios (e.g., clinical diagnostics, environmental monitoring) will help researchers focus on the most relevant genetic content for their work [22]. By carefully considering database structures, curation methods, and annotation depth against their specific needs, researchers can make informed choices that maximize the accuracy and biological relevance of their antimicrobial resistance studies.

From Data to Insight: Methodologies for ARG Detection in Genomic and Metagenomic Workflows

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) presents a formidable global health challenge, directly causing an estimated 1.27 million deaths annually and threatening to reverse decades of medical progress [25] [26]. The accurate identification of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) through genomic sequencing has become a cornerstone of global surveillance efforts. Within this context, bioinformaticians and researchers face a fundamental methodological choice: whether to identify ARGs directly from raw sequencing data (read-based) or from reconstructed genomic sequences (assembly-based). This decision significantly impacts the sensitivity, specificity, and contextual information of ARG profiling results [2] [27].

The selection between these approaches is not merely technical but strategic, influencing the scope and depth of resistome characterization. Read-based methods offer speed and sensitivity for gene detection, while assembly-based approaches provide the genomic context necessary for understanding mobility and host relationships [27] [25]. With advances in sequencing technologies and analytical tools, both methodologies have evolved substantially, making a comparative assessment of their capabilities essential for designing effective AMR surveillance studies. This guide provides an objective comparison of these foundational strategies, equipping researchers with the evidence needed to align their methodological choices with specific research objectives within the broader context of ARG database benchmarking research.

Fundamental Principles: How Assembly-Based and Read-Based Methods Work

Read-Based ARG Identification

Read-based ARG identification operates by directly aligning short or long sequencing reads against curated ARG reference databases without prior assembly. This method leverages alignment algorithms such as BLAST or DIAMOND to rapidly screen large volumes of sequencing data [2] [17]. The approach functions by comparing each individual read against reference sequences, retaining those that meet predefined similarity thresholds. This strategy is particularly effective for high-throughput screening applications where computational efficiency is prioritized.

The fundamental strength of read-based identification lies in its ability to detect ARGs present in complex microbial communities without being constrained by requirements for sufficient coverage needed for assembly. This makes it particularly suitable for identifying low-abundance resistance determinants that might be lost during the assembly process [27]. However, a significant limitation is the shortcoming in taxonomic precision and the inability to determine whether ARGs are located on chromosomes or mobile genetic elements, as individual reads typically lack sufficient contextual information [27].

Assembly-Based ARG Identification

Assembly-based identification reconstructs sequencing reads into longer contiguous sequences (contigs) before performing ARG detection. This process involves graph-based algorithms that overlap reads to reconstruct longer genomic fragments, which are then screened for ARGs using similar alignment-based methods [25] [20]. The assembly step, while computationally intensive, preserves the genomic neighborhood surrounding resistance genes, enabling contextual analysis that is critical for understanding ARG mobility and potential for horizontal transfer.

The primary advantage of this approach is its ability to link ARGs to their genomic context, determining whether they are located on chromosomes, plasmids, or other mobile genetic elements [25]. This contextual information is invaluable for assessing the transmission risk associated with identified resistance determinants. Additionally, assembly-based methods typically yield higher specificity by reducing false positives that can occur when analyzing individual reads in isolation. The main drawbacks include computational demands and potential undersampling of low-abundance genes that fail to assemble due to insufficient coverage [27].

Performance Comparison: Key Metrics and Experimental Data

Comparative Performance Across Methodologies

Table 1: Comparative Performance of Assembly-Based vs. Read-Based ARG Identification

Performance Metric	Read-Based Approach	Assembly-Based Approach
Computational Speed	Fast (avoids assembly step) [27]	Slow (requires assembly) [25]
Sensitivity for Low-Abundance ARGs	High (does not require minimum coverage) [27]	Limited (requires ~3x coverage for assembly) [27]
Taxonomic Resolution	Low (limited by read length) [27] [17]	High (longer contigs improve classification) [17]
Contextual Information	Minimal (limited to single reads) [27] [25]	Comprehensive (preserves genomic neighborhood) [25]
Detection of Point Mutations	Challenging (especially with sequencing errors) [27]	More reliable (consensus from multiple reads) [27]
Handling of Repetitive Regions	Limited (difficult to map correctly) [27]	Better resolution of repeats with long reads [27]

Experimental data from benchmarking studies reveals that the choice between methodologies involves significant trade-offs. Research by Chen et al. (2025) demonstrated that assembly-based approaches identified 15-30% fewer ARGs in complex metagenomic samples compared to read-based methods, primarily due to the loss of low-coverage genes during assembly [27]. Conversely, studies using the ARGContextProfiler tool established that assembly-based approaches correctly reconstructed genomic contexts for 89% of ARGs in mock communities, compared to less than 10% with read-based methods [25] [20].

Impact of Sequencing Technology on Performance

The performance of both identification strategies is significantly influenced by sequencing technology. Short-read sequencing (Illumina) generates highly accurate reads but struggles with repetitive regions and reconstructing complete genomic contexts [25]. Long-read technologies (Oxford Nanopore, PacBio) produce reads spanning thousands of bases, enabling more complete assembly and better resolution of repetitive regions, particularly around ARGs and plasmids [27] [17].

A case study on fluoroquinolone resistance in chicken fecal samples demonstrated that Nanopore long-read sequencing combined with assembly enabled both detection of ARGs and linkage to their bacterial hosts through analysis of DNA methylation patterns [27] [28]. The same study utilized haplotype phasing to uncover resistance-determining point mutations in metagenomic datasets that were masked in short-read assemblies [27]. This illustrates how emerging long-read technologies are blurring the traditional boundaries between read-based and assembly-based approaches by providing both length and context while minimizing assembly artifacts.

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Standardized Workflows for Method Comparison

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Databases	Primary Function	Key Features
ARG Databases	CARD [2], ResFinder [2], SARG+ [17]	Reference sequences for ARG identification	Varying curation standards, coverage, and update frequency
Read-Based Tools	DeepARG [2] [29], RGI [2]	Direct alignment of reads to ARG databases	Fast processing, suitable for initial screening
Assembly-Based Tools	metaSPAdes [25] [20], ARGContextProfiler [25] [20]	Reconstruction of contiguous sequences from reads	Preserves genomic context for mobility assessment
Hybrid Approaches	DRAMMA [26], ProtAlign-ARG [29]	Machine learning-based ARG detection	Identifies novel ARGs beyond sequence similarity

Detailed Methodologies from Key Studies

Protocol 1: Read-Based ARG Identification with Long Reads (Argo Pipeline) The Argo pipeline exemplifies modern read-based identification optimized for long-read data [17]. The protocol begins with frameshift-aware alignment of long reads against the SARG+ database using DIAMOND, identifying reads carrying ARGs. Taxonomic classification then employs a read-clustering approach where reads are grouped based on overlap graphs rather than classified individually. This collective classification strategy significantly enhances accuracy by reducing misclassifications that commonly occur with single-read methods. The final output provides species-resolved ARG profiles that accurately link resistance genes to their microbial hosts without the computational overhead of complete metagenome assembly [17].

Protocol 2: Assembly-Based Contextual Analysis (ARGContextProfiler) ARGContextProfiler utilizes a sophisticated assembly-based approach specifically designed to extract genomic contexts of ARGs from metagenomic data [25] [20]. The protocol initiates with quality control of raw reads using fastp, followed by graph-based assembly using metaSPAdes. Unlike conventional assembly approaches that output linear contigs, ARGContextProfiler directly interrogates the assembly graph structure, mapping query ARGs to graph nodes and extracting all possible genomic neighborhoods through graph traversal. The pipeline implements rigorous chimera detection filters based on read-pair consistency and coverage variations to eliminate false contextual associations. Validation on synthetic and complex environmental samples demonstrated superior accuracy in reconstructing genuine genomic contexts compared to traditional assembly-based methods [25].

Protocol 3: Hybrid Machine Learning Approach (DRAMMA) DRAMMA represents an innovative departure from purely alignment-based methods by employing a random forest classifier trained on diverse biological features [26]. The model incorporates 512 distinct features spanning protein properties, genomic context, evolutionary patterns, and horizontal gene transfer signals. During implementation, DRAMMA first extracts these features from protein sequences, then applies the trained classifier to identify ARGs based on characteristic patterns rather than sequence similarity alone. This approach enables detection of novel ARGs that lack significant homology to known resistance genes, addressing a fundamental limitation of both read-based and assembly-based methods. Benchmarking demonstrated robust performance on independent validation sets, particularly for identifying emerging resistance determinants not yet captured in standard databases [26].

Decision Framework: Selecting the Appropriate Strategy

Application-Specific Recommendations

The choice between assembly-based and read-based ARG identification strategies should be guided by specific research objectives and experimental constraints:

• Choose Read-Based Approaches When: The primary goal is rapid surveillance of ARG presence and abundance across large sample sets [27]. This approach is also preferable when targeting low-abundance resistance determinants that might be lost during assembly due to insufficient coverage, and when computational resources are limited for intensive assembly processes [27].

• Choose Assembly-Based Approaches When: The research requires understanding of ARG mobility and transmission risk, necessitating genomic context information [25]. This method is essential for determining whether ARGs are located on chromosomes or mobile genetic elements, and when high taxonomic resolution is needed to link ARGs to specific host species [17]. Assembly-based approaches are also superior for detecting resistance-associated point mutations that require consensus building from multiple reads [27].

• Consider Hybrid or Emerging Approaches When: Investigating novel or divergent ARGs with poor homology to database sequences, where machine learning tools like DRAMMA offer advantages [26]. When using long-read sequencing technologies that naturally provide more contextual information within single reads, and when research objectives encompass both detection and risk assessment of resistance genes [27] [17].

Integrated Workflow for Comprehensive ARG Profiling

For studies requiring comprehensive resistome characterization, an integrated sequential workflow leveraging both approaches provides the most complete analysis. This begins with read-based screening to establish ARG inventory and abundance across all samples, followed by assembly-based analysis of selected samples of interest to resolve genomic contexts and host associations [27]. This balanced strategy maximizes both the sensitivity of ARG detection and the contextual understanding necessary for risk assessment and mechanism elucidation.

The strategic selection between assembly-based and read-based ARG identification methods represents a fundamental decision point in antimicrobial resistance research. Read-based approaches offer unparalleled advantages in detection sensitivity and computational efficiency, making them ideal for large-scale screening applications and studies focusing on ARG abundance patterns. Conversely, assembly-based methods provide the critical genomic context necessary for understanding ARG mobility, host associations, and transmission risk—information essential for risk assessment and intervention development.

Emerging methodologies, including hybrid machine learning approaches and long-read sequencing technologies, are progressively blurring the historical boundaries between these strategies. Tools like DRAMMA [26] and ProtAlign-ARG [29] leverage protein language models and diverse biological features to identify novel ARGs beyond sequence similarity, while platforms like ARGContextProfiler [25] extract richer information from assembly graphs. For comprehensive AMR surveillance, integrated workflows that combine the initial sensitivity of read-based screening with the contextual resolution of assembly-based analysis will provide the most complete understanding of resistome dynamics and transmission risks, ultimately supporting more effective interventions against the spread of antimicrobial resistance.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) represents one of the most pressing global health challenges of our time, with projections indicating it could cause up to 10 million deaths annually by 2050 if left unaddressed [30]. The accurate identification and characterization of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) through genomic analysis has become a cornerstone of modern AMR surveillance and research. As the volume of bacterial genomic data continues to expand rapidly, bioinformatics tools capable of efficiently detecting known and novel ARGs have become indispensable for researchers, clinical microbiologists, and public health professionals [2].

Among the numerous bioinformatics platforms available, three tools have demonstrated particular utility for comprehensive ARG analysis: AMRFinderPlus, developed by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI); DeepARG, which leverages deep learning algorithms; and HMD-ARG, which employs a hierarchical multi-task classification framework [2] [30]. Each tool employs distinct computational approaches, databases, and detection methodologies, resulting in complementary strengths and limitations that make them suitable for different research scenarios and objectives.

This guide provides an objective comparison of these three prominent ARG detection tools, focusing on their underlying algorithms, performance characteristics, and optimal applications. By synthesizing current benchmarking data and experimental findings, we aim to assist researchers in selecting the most appropriate tool for their specific ARG detection needs within the broader context of AMR database coverage and accuracy assessment research.

AMRFinderPlus: A Curated Reference-Based Approach

AMRFinderPlus is a widely used tool developed by NCBI that relies on a carefully curated reference database of known resistance determinants. The tool identifies ARGs by comparing query sequences against its Reference Gene Catalog, which incorporates genes associated with antimicrobial resistance, virulence factors, and stress response [2] [12]. AMRFinderPlus employs a protein-based search methodology using BLASTP or HMMER, enabling the detection of both acquired resistance genes and chromosomal mutations associated with antibiotic resistance [7] [12].

The tool's database is regularly updated and includes an extensive collection of resistance mechanisms, covering antibiotic inactivation, efflux pumps, and target alteration genes. AMRFinderPlus supports the analysis of assembled genomes and can identify point mutations in specific bacterial species, though its capability for detecting novel or divergent ARGs is limited by its reliance on sequence similarity to known references [2] [12].

DeepARG: A Deep Learning Framework for Novel ARG Prediction

DeepARG represents a paradigm shift in ARG detection through its implementation of deep learning models specifically designed to identify ARGs from both short reads (DeepARG-SS) and full-length gene sequences (DeepARG-LS) [31]. Instead of relying solely on sequence similarity cutoffs, DeepARG employs a dissimilarity matrix created using all known categories of ARGs, allowing it to detect more remote homologs and novel resistance genes that would be missed by traditional best-hit approaches [31] [30].

The tool utilizes a companion database, DeepARG-DB, which was constructed by integrating and curating sequences from multiple sources including CARD, ARDB, and UNIPROT [31] [21]. Evaluation across 30 antibiotic resistance categories has demonstrated that DeepARG models can predict ARGs with high precision (>0.97) and recall (>0.90), significantly reducing false negative rates compared to traditional methods [31].

HMD-ARG: Hierarchical Multi-Task Classification for Comprehensive Profiling

HMD-ARG employs a hierarchical multi-task classification model based on convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to simultaneously identify ARGs and classify them according to their antibiotic classes [29] [30]. This tool utilizes one of the largest ARG repositories, HMD-ARG-DB, which consolidates data from seven widely used databases including AMRFinder, CARD, ResFinder, Resfams, DeepARG, MEGARes, and Antibiotic Resistance Gene-ANNOTation [29].

The hierarchical structure of HMD-ARG's classification system enables more granular ARG characterization, making it particularly valuable for detailed resistome analysis. The tool has demonstrated robust performance in identifying ARGs across diverse microbial communities and can effectively distinguish between different resistance mechanisms [29] [30].

Table 1: Comparative Overview of AMRFinderPlus, DeepARG, and HMD-ARG

Feature	AMRFinderPlus	DeepARG	HMD-ARG
Primary Algorithm	BLASTP/HMMER against curated database	Deep learning (multilayer perceptron)	Hierarchical multi-task CNN
Database Source	Reference Gene Catalog (NCBI)	DeepARG-DB (CARD, ARDB, UNIPROT)	HMD-ARG-DB (7 integrated databases)
Key Strength	Well-curated, reliable annotations	Novel ARG detection, high recall	Comprehensive classification
Detection Scope	Acquired genes, point mutations	Primarily acquired resistance genes	Acquired resistance genes
Novel ARG Detection	Limited	Excellent	Moderate
Execution Speed	Fast	Moderate (model inference)	Variable (model complexity)
Ideal Use Case	Clinical isolate screening	Metagenomic novel gene discovery	Detailed resistome profiling

Performance Benchmarking and Experimental Data

Comparative Assessment in Klebsiella pneumoniae Studies

A comprehensive assessment of annotation tools applied to Klebsiella pneumoniae genomes revealed significant differences in ARG annotation completeness across tools [7]. The study implemented "minimal models" of resistance using known markers to predict binary resistance phenotypes for 20 major antimicrobials, comparing performance across eight annotation tools including AMRFinderPlus and DeepARG.

The research found that tool performance varied substantially across different antibiotic classes, with minimal models successfully predicting resistance for some antibiotics but significantly underperforming for others, highlighting knowledge gaps in known AMR mechanisms [7]. AMRFinderPlus demonstrated advantages in detecting point mutations and providing concise gene matching, while DeepARG showed strengths in identifying divergent resistance genes that would be missed by strict similarity thresholds [7] [31].

Precision and Recall Metrics Across Environments

Independent evaluations comparing ARG detection tools have consistently demonstrated that deep learning-based approaches like DeepARG and HMD-ARG achieve higher recall rates compared to traditional alignment-based methods, though sometimes with a slight trade-off in precision [31] [29] [30].

In metagenomic analyses, DeepARG has demonstrated a notable advantage in reducing false negatives, with evaluations reporting recall rates exceeding 0.90 while maintaining precision above 0.97 [31]. This makes it particularly valuable for exploratory studies where comprehensive ARG profiling is prioritized. HMD-ARG has shown robust performance across diverse datasets, with its hierarchical classification system enabling accurate categorization of ARGs into appropriate antibiotic classes [29] [30].

Table 2: Performance Metrics Reported in Comparative Studies

Tool	Reported Precision	Reported Recall	False Negative Rate	Antibiotic Categories Covered
AMRFinderPlus	High (varies by dataset)	Moderate (limited by reference)	Moderate	20+
DeepARG	>0.97 [31]	>0.90 [31]	Low	30 [31]
HMD-ARG	High (comparable to DeepARG) [29]	High (superior to alignment methods) [29]	Low	33 [29]

Experimental Protocols for Tool Benchmarking

Standardized Workflow for ARG Detection and Validation

The following experimental protocol outlines a standardized approach for benchmarking ARG detection tools, derived from methodologies described in recent comparative studies [7] [29]:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for ARG Detection Experiments

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Function/Purpose in ARG Detection
Reference Databases	CARD, ResFinder, Reference Gene Catalog, DeepARG-DB, HMD-ARG-DB	Provide curated sets of known ARGs for tool comparison and validation
Benchmark Datasets	COALA dataset, HMD-ARG-DB, BV-BRC K. pneumoniae genomes	Standardized datasets for performance evaluation across tools
Bioinformatics Tools	BLAST, DIAMOND, CD-HIT, GraphPart	Sequence alignment, clustering, and data partitioning for analysis
Validation Resources	Phenotypic AST data, Known positive/negative control sequences	Ground truth data for calculating precision, recall, and accuracy metrics
Computational Infrastructure	High-performance computing clusters, Adequate RAM (>32GB recommended)	Handle computationally intensive analyses, especially for metagenomes

Data Partitioning and Validation Strategies

Robust benchmarking requires careful data partitioning to avoid biased performance metrics. Recent studies have implemented GraphPart for precise separation of training and testing datasets, ensuring maximum similarity thresholds between partitions [29]. This approach prevents overestimation of performance that can occur when similar sequences are present in both training and testing sets.

For validation, the integration of phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) data provides crucial ground truth for assessing prediction accuracy [7] [32]. The use of standardized resistance breakpoints (e.g., from EUCAST or CLSI) ensures consistent binary resistance classification, while minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values offer more granular data for advanced modeling approaches [7].

Application Guidelines and Strategic Implementation

Context-Dependent Tool Selection

The optimal choice among AMRFinderPlus, DeepARG, and HMD-ARG depends heavily on the specific research objectives, sample types, and analytical priorities:

• For clinical diagnostics and isolate screening: AMRFinderPlus offers advantages due to its rigorous curation, rapid execution, and reliable detection of known resistance determinants [2] [12].

• For exploratory metagenomic studies: DeepARG is preferable when the goal is comprehensive ARG discovery, as its deep learning approach effectively identifies novel and divergent resistance genes that would be missed by similarity-based methods [31] [30].

• For detailed resistome characterization: HMD-ARG provides superior classification capabilities, making it ideal for studies requiring granular analysis of resistance mechanisms across antibiotic classes [29] [30].

Integrated Approaches for Comprehensive Analysis

Increasing evidence suggests that complementary use of multiple tools can provide the most comprehensive ARG profiling [7] [2]. A sequential approach utilizing AMRFinderPlus for well-characterized resistance determinants followed by DeepARG or HMD-ARG for novel gene discovery can balance reliability with comprehensiveness.

For maximum detection sensitivity, particularly in complex metagenomic samples, implementing both alignment-based and machine learning-based tools in parallel ensures coverage of both known ARGs and potentially novel resistance determinants [2]. This integrated strategy is especially valuable for environmental resistome studies where the diversity of resistance genes may be substantial and poorly characterized.

Future Directions and Emerging Technologies

The field of computational ARG detection continues to evolve rapidly, with several emerging technologies showing promise for enhancing prediction accuracy and comprehensiveness. Protein language models, such as those implemented in ProtAlign-ARG, represent a powerful hybrid approach that combines alignment-based scoring with embeddings from pre-trained protein language models [29]. Initial evaluations suggest these methods can further improve recall while maintaining high precision, particularly for remote homologs and novel resistance genes [29] [30].

Additionally, the development of non-redundant comprehensive databases like NCRD (Non-redundant Comprehensive Database) addresses issues of database redundancy and coverage gaps in existing resources [21]. These enhanced databases contain significantly more protein sequences and ARG subtypes compared to traditional databases, improving the detection of potential ARGs in environmental samples [21].

As long-read sequencing technologies continue to mature, tools capable of leveraging this data for more accurate ARG detection and host attribution will become increasingly valuable [28]. The integration of methylation profiling for plasmid-host linking and advanced haplotyping methods for detecting resistance-conferring SNPs directly from metagenomic data represents particularly promising avenues for future tool development [28].

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a significant global health threat, largely driven by the horizontal gene transfer (HGT) of antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs) among bacterial populations. The ability to accurately profile the mobility and host association of these genes is crucial for understanding their dissemination dynamics and developing effective interventions. Mobile genetic elements (MGEs), including plasmids, transposons, integrons, and bacteriophages, serve as primary vehicles for ARG transfer between bacterial hosts, creating a complex web of potential DNA exchanges within microbial communities [33]. This landscape is further complicated by the diverse mechanisms of HGT, which include conjugation, transformation, transduction, and emerging pathways such as vesiduction and transjugation [33].

The challenge in profiling ARG mobility stems from several factors: the extensive diversity of MGEs, the complex interactions between different types of elements, and the limitations of available bioinformatic tools and databases. Many computational tools for processing genomic data were originally developed for human studies and may not perform optimally with microbial genomes, which often contain higher proportions of repetitive sequences, structural variations, and more complex genomic arrangements [34]. Furthermore, the quality and completeness of reference genomes for many microbial species lag behind those available for human studies, creating additional challenges for accurate variant discovery and host assignment [34].

This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of current techniques for extracting genomic context to profile ARG mobility and host associations, focusing on experimental and computational approaches that enable researchers to track MGEs and their cargo genes across diverse microbial communities.

Classification of Mobility Mechanisms and Genetic Elements

Canonical Horizontal Gene Transfer Mechanisms

Mobile genetic elements facilitate ARG transfer through several well-established mechanisms, each with distinct characteristics and implications for AMR spread. Conjugation involves the direct cell-to-cell transfer of genetic material, primarily plasmids and integrative conjugative elements (ICEs), through a specialized type IV secretion system [33]. This mechanism requires physical contact between donor and recipient cells and is considered one of the most efficient routes for ARG dissemination. Transformation represents the uptake of environmental DNA by naturally competent bacteria, allowing for the acquisition of ARGs from lysed cells [33]. Transposition enables the movement of transposable elements (including transposons and insertion sequences) within and between genomes, frequently facilitating the integration of ARGs into various MGEs [33]. Transduction occurs when bacteriophages inadvertently package and transfer bacterial DNA, including ARGs, between host cells during viral infection cycles [33].

Emerging and Specialized Transfer Mechanisms

Recent research has uncovered additional mechanisms that contribute to ARG mobility. Gene transfer agents represent hybrid systems combining elements of transduction and transformation, while membrane vesicles (via "vesiduction") can transport DNA between cells without direct contact [33]. Distributive conjugal transfer and mycoplasma chromosomal transfer enable the exchange of large chromosomal regions, potentially including ARGs not associated with canonical MGEs [33]. Integrons represent specialized genetic platforms that efficiently capture, express, and rearrange mobile gene cassettes, including those carrying ARGs [35]. These elements contain an integron-integrase gene (intI) that catalyzes the site-specific recombination of gene cassettes featuring attC sites, allowing for the rapid assembly of ARG arrays [35].

Table 1: Mobile Genetic Elements and Their Role in ARG Transfer

Element Type	Transfer Mechanism	ARG Carrying Capacity	Host Range Implications
Plasmids	Conjugation	High (multiple ARGs)	Broad host range variants can cross taxonomic boundaries
Transposons	Transposition	Moderate (single to few ARGs)	Dependent on host range of carrier elements (e.g., plasmids)
Integrons	Conjugation, Transduction	High (gene cassette arrays)	Varies with integron class and associated MGEs
Bacteriophages	Transduction	Low to moderate	Typically narrow host range
ICEs	Conjugation	Moderate to high	Often taxonomically restricted

Computational Tools for MGE and ARG Annotation

The accuracy of computational ARG mobility profiling depends heavily on the reference databases used for annotation. Several specialized databases have been developed with different curation philosophies and scope. The Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD) employs stringent validation criteria for included resistance determinants [7]. ResFinder and PointFinder focus on species-specific point mutations in addition to ARGs [7]. PLSDB provides a curated collection of plasmid sequences, with recent updates substantially expanding its content to over 72,000 entries and enhancing annotations for antimicrobial resistance genes and mobility typing [36]. The UNIPROT and ARDB databases offer broader coverage but with varying levels of validation [7]. Each database has been curated with different rules, resulting in differences in ARG content, which directly impacts annotation consistency and accuracy across tools [7].

Annotation Tools and Their Performance Characteristics

Multiple computational tools have been developed to identify ARGs and MGEs in genomic data, each with different strengths and limitations. AMRFinderPlus provides comprehensive annotation of both resistance genes and point mutations [7]. Kleborate offers species-specific curation for Klebsiella pneumoniae, potentially reducing false positives [7]. DeepARG utilizes deep learning models for ARG identification [7]. geNomad represents a recent advancement in MGE identification, employing a hybrid approach that combines alignment-free classification using a neural network model with gene-based classification using marker protein profiles [37]. In benchmarks, geNomad achieved high classification performance for diverse plasmids and viruses (Matthews correlation coefficient of 77.8% and 95.3%, respectively), substantially outperforming other tools [37].

Table 2: Comparison of Computational Annotation Tools

Tool	Primary Function	Database Dependencies	Strengths	Limitations
AMRFinderPlus	ARG & mutation detection	Custom curated database	Comprehensive coverage of mechanisms	May have higher computational demands
geNomad	Plasmid & virus identification	Custom marker set (227,897 profiles)	Hybrid approach (alignment-free + gene-based), high accuracy	Limited to plasmid/virus identification
Kleborate	Species-specific typing	Custom database for K. pneumoniae	High specificity for target organism	Narrow taxonomic scope
PLSDB	Plasmid reference database	Self-contained	Curated collection, minimal redundancy	Limited to known plasmid sequences
IntegronFinder	Integron identification	Profile hidden Markov models	Detects complete integrons, CALINs	Primarily focused on integron systems

Experimental Methods for Validating Mobility

Laboratory Techniques for Tracking MGE Transfer

Experimental validation remains essential for confirming computational predictions of ARG mobility. Conjugation assays enable direct measurement of plasmid transfer frequencies between donor and recipient strains under controlled conditions [33]. Transformation experiments quantify the uptake of extracellular DNA, including plasmid and chromosomal DNA containing ARGs [33]. Transposition assays monitor the movement of transposable elements between genetic locations using selectable markers [33]. Phage transduction studies track the bacteriophage-mediated transfer of ARGs between bacterial hosts [33]. The attC × attI recombination assay specifically tests the functionality of integron systems by measuring the frequency at which attC sites are recombined into attI sites by the integron-integrase [35]. This assay has been used to demonstrate that attC sites from virulent phages can be recognized and recombined by the bacterial class 1 integron-integrase (IntI1), establishing a previously unrecognized route for lateral transfer [35].

Emerging Metagenomic Approaches for Mobility Assessment

Advanced metagenomic techniques offer promising avenues for studying MGE transfer in complex communities without cultivation. Chromosome conformation capture (3C) and related methods (Hi-C, meta3C) can determine which MGEs are physically associated with specific host chromosomes in mixed communities [33]. Methylome analysis exploits the fact that MGEs often have distinct DNA methylation patterns compared to their hosts, allowing for host assignment based on methylation profiles [33]. Long-read sequencing technologies (Oxford Nanopore, PacBio) enable complete assembly of MGEs and their genomic context, resolving repetitive regions that challenge short-read approaches [36]. These emerging techniques complement existing molecular methods and provide new opportunities for studying ARG mobility in complex microbial communities such as the human gut or environmental microbiomes [33].

The following diagram illustrates the integrated experimental workflow for validating ARG mobility:

Research Reagent Solutions for Mobility Studies

Essential Experimental Materials and Tools

Successful profiling of ARG mobility requires specialized reagents and tools tailored to different aspects of MGE tracking. Mobilizable suicide vectors (e.g., pJP5603) enable the testing of specific recombination events, such as attC × attI integration [35]. DAP-auxotrophic E. coli strains (e.g., WM3064) serve as conjugation donors or recipients in mating experiments [35]. Type IIS restriction enzymes (e.g., BmrI, MlyI) facilitate restriction site-free cloning strategies for constructing genetic fusions [38]. Chromosome conformation capture kits provide necessary reagents for crosslinking, digestion, and ligation steps in 3C-based host assignment protocols [33]. Methylation-sensitive restriction enzymes help distinguish MGEs from host chromosomes based on differential methylation patterns [33]. The development of RSFC (restriction site-free cloning) vector families enables efficient testing of multiple genetic fusions, with systems available for common expression hosts like Pichia pastoris [38].

Reference Materials and Quality Control

Well-characterized reference strains with known MGE content are essential for method validation and inter-laboratory comparisons. The inclusion of positive control elements (e.g., attCaadA7 for recombination assays) ensures proper functioning of experimental systems [35]. Customizable marker protein profile sets, such as the 227,897 profiles used in geNomad, enable consistent annotation across studies [37]. Reference plasmid collections, including those curated in PLSDB, provide benchmark sequences for evaluating new MGE identification tools [36]. For antibiotic resistance phenotyping, standardized antibiotic panels with clinical breakpoints (e.g., EUCAST, CLSI) ensure consistent resistance classification across studies [7].

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for ARG Mobility Studies

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Primary Application	Key Considerations
Cloning Vectors	pJP5603, RSFC vectors	Genetic construction	Compatibility with host systems, modular design
Host Strains	E. coli WM3064 (DAP-auxotrophic)	Conjugation assays	Antibiotic markers, metabolic requirements
Restriction Enzymes	Type IIS (BmrI, MlyI)	Molecular cloning	Specificity, star activity, compatibility
Reference Databases	CARD, PLSDB, geNomad markers	Computational annotation	Coverage, curation quality, update frequency
Validation Controls	attCaadA7, known MGE+ strains	Assay standardization	Availability, documentation, stability

The field of ARG mobility profiling continues to evolve rapidly, with emerging technologies addressing longstanding limitations. The integration of multiple complementary approaches—combining computational predictions with experimental validations—provides the most robust assessments of mobility potential. Tools like geNomad that leverage hybrid approaches (combining alignment-free and gene-based classification) demonstrate the power of integrating multiple data types for improved MGE identification [37]. Similarly, the combination of computational annotation with experimental techniques such as recombination assays and conjugation studies enables comprehensive mobility assessment.

Future advancements will likely come from several directions: improved long-read sequencing technologies that provide more complete MGE assemblies, enhanced machine learning approaches that better predict mobility potential from sequence features, and standardized reference materials that enable better cross-study comparisons. The development of species-specific annotation tools, following the example of Kleborate for K. pneumoniae, may improve accuracy for clinically important pathogens [7]. Additionally, the creation of more comprehensive and curated databases, such as the expanded PLSDB, will provide better reference resources for the research community [36].

As these technologies mature, the capacity to accurately profile ARG mobility and host associations will improve, supporting more effective surveillance and intervention strategies to combat the global spread of antimicrobial resistance. This will require ongoing benchmarking studies, such as those comparing variant identification tools across diverse plant species [34], to ensure methods perform reliably across the full spectrum of microbial diversity.

Integrating ARG Analysis into Broader 'One Health' Surveillance Frameworks

The rise of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) represents one of the most pressing global health challenges of the 21st century, with recent estimates attributing approximately 1.27 million deaths annually directly to AMR worldwide [39]. The One Health approach recognizes that the health of humans, animals, and ecosystems are interconnected, and that effective AMR surveillance requires integrated monitoring across these domains [40] [41]. Antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs) serve as the fundamental genetic determinants of resistance, and their detection and characterization through genomic analysis have become cornerstone methodologies for tracking AMR across One Health sectors [5] [29].

Several databases and computational tools have been developed to identify ARGs from sequencing data, yet these resources differ substantially in content, structure, and analytical focus [7] [39]. These differences directly impact the performance of ARG detection and consequently affect risk assessments and surveillance outcomes. This guide provides a comparative assessment of leading ARG databases and their integration into One Health surveillance frameworks, supported by experimental data on their performance characteristics. Understanding these differences is fundamental for selecting appropriate databases for specific research questions and for developing effective surveillance strategies across human, animal, and environmental health domains.

Comparative Analysis of Major ARG Databases

Database Content and Structural Characteristics

ARG databases can be broadly categorized by their curation approach, scope of resistance mechanisms, and update frequency. The following table summarizes the key characteristics of major databases:

Table 1: Structural Characteristics and Content of Major ARG Databases

Database	Year Established	Update Frequency	Curational Approach	Resistance Mechanisms Covered	Notable Features
CARD [39]	2013	Regular, expert-curated	Manual expert curation with experimental validation requirements	Acquired genes, mutations	Antibiotic Resistance Ontology (ARO); strict evidence criteria
ResFinder [39]	2012	Regular	Curated	Acquired resistance genes	Often paired with PointFinder for mutation analysis
SARG [21]	2016	Periodically updated	Automated with manual refinement	Acquired resistance genes	Hierarchical structure; reclassification of ARDB sequences
NCRD [21]	2023	Newest database	Computational integration and deduplication	Comprehensive coverage	Non-redundant consolidation of ARDB, CARD, and SARG; largest subtype coverage
ARDB [21] [39]	2009	Not updated since 2009	Early comprehensive database	Acquired resistance genes	Historical significance but now outdated
ARGminer [39]	2019	Ensemble, periodically updated	Machine learning and crowdsourcing	Acquired resistance genes	Integrates multiple databases with standardized nomenclature
MEGARes [39]	2016	Regularly updated	Curated	Acquired resistance genes	Designed specifically for metagenomics analysis
NDARO [39]	2018	Regularly updated	Collaborative curation by NCBI, FDA, USDA, etc.	Acquired genes, mutations	Integrates data from multiple US government agencies

The content divergence between these databases is substantial. Analysis reveals that the number of ARG subtypes varies significantly, with CARD containing 338 subtypes, SARG containing 225, while the recently developed NCRD expands coverage to 444 subtypes [21]. This variability stems from different curation philosophies: CARD employs stringent criteria requiring experimental validation of resistance mechanisms and MIC increases, while other databases may include sequences based on homology or predictive evidence [7] [39].

Specialized databases have also emerged to address specific analytical needs. PLSDB focuses exclusively on plasmid sequences, which are crucial for understanding ARG mobility and horizontal gene transfer [36]. As of 2024, PLSDB hosts 72,360 curated plasmid entries, with enhanced annotations for antimicrobial resistance genes and mobility typing [36]. This specialized resource supports the analysis of mobile genetic elements that facilitate ARG transfer across bacterial populations in One Health settings.

Performance Comparison in Experimental Settings

Experimental comparisons provide critical insights into database performance characteristics. The following table summarizes key findings from benchmark studies:

Table 2: Experimental Performance Metrics of ARG Databases and Annotation Tools

Database/Tool	Detection Sensitivity	Specificity/ Precision	Notable Strengths	Identified Limitations
CARD [7]	High for validated genes	High due to stringent curation	Excellent reliability for known resistance mechanisms	Limited coverage of novel or emerging ARGs
NCRD [21]	Highest (34,008 protein sequences)	Moderate (potential false positives)	Superior detection of potential ARGs in metagenomic datasets	Requires careful parameter optimization to reduce false positives
AMRFinderPlus [7]	High for genes and mutations	High	Comprehensive including point mutations	Species-specific performance variations
ResFinder [7]	Moderate to high	High	Specialization in acquired resistance genes	Limited chromosome-mediated resistance detection
DeepARG [7] [29]	High	Moderate	Good performance with metagenomic data	Higher false positive rate compared to curated databases
16S rRNA-based prediction [42]	Very low (F1 scores: 0.08-0.22)	Low	Cost-effective for community profiling	Unsuitable for accurate ARG surveillance

A 2025 study evaluating marker gene-based in silico antimicrobial resistance prediction found that 16S rRNA-based functional profilers (PICRUSt2, Tax4Fun, MicFunPred) demonstrated poor performance for ARG detection, with F1 scores ranging from 0.08 to 0.22 across 12 antibiotic classes [42]. This highlights the limitation of indirect inference methods compared to direct detection from whole-genome or metagenomic sequencing.

Recent advances in machine learning and hybrid approaches show promise for enhancing ARG detection. ProtAlign-ARG, a novel tool integrating protein language models with alignment-based scoring, demonstrated superior recall compared to existing methods while maintaining the ability to detect novel ARG variants [29]. Such approaches may help bridge the gap between comprehensive coverage (sensitivity) and accuracy (specificity) in ARG annotation.

Methodologies for ARG Database Benchmarking

Experimental Design for Database Performance Assessment

Robust benchmarking of ARG databases requires standardized methodologies and well-characterized datasets. The following experimental workflow provides a framework for comparative assessment:

Diagram 1: ARG database benchmarking workflow

Dataset Curation and Preparation

High-quality genomic or metagenomic datasets with corresponding phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) data serve as the reference standard. For example, studies have utilized collections of Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates (n=3,751 after quality filtering) with resistance phenotypes for 20 major antimicrobials [7], or carbapenem-resistant and susceptible E. coli strains (n=20) with VITEK2 phenotypic validation [42]. Dataset partitioning should ensure distinct training and testing sets, with tools like GraphPart providing more precise separation compared to traditional methods like CDHIT [29].

Annotation Pipeline Implementation

Parallel annotation using multiple tools and databases against the same dataset enables direct comparison. A typical implementation includes:

• Tool Selection: Choose representative tools such as AMRFinderPlus, RGI with CARD, ResFinder, DeepARG, and Kleborate for species-specific analysis [7].

• Parameter Standardization: Implement consistent thresholds for sequence similarity (e.g., ≥90% coverage, ≥80% identity) across tools where adjustable [21].

• Feature Matrix Generation: Convert annotation outputs into binary presence/absence matrices (Xp×n ∈ {0,1}) where Xij = 1 indicates presence of feature j in sample i [7].

Performance Metrics and Statistical Analysis

Key performance metrics include:

• Sensitivity/Recall: Proportion of true positive ARGs correctly identified
• Specificity: Proportion of true negatives correctly identified
• Precision: Proportion of positive predictions that are correct
• F1-score: Harmonic mean of precision and recall
• Accuracy: Overall proportion of correct predictions

Machine learning models can further evaluate the predictive power of database-derived features. Studies have employed logistic regression with regularization (Elastic Net) and ensemble methods (XGBoost) to predict resistance phenotypes from annotated gene profiles [7]. Performance is typically assessed via cross-validation and hold-out testing, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) providing a robust measure of classification performance.

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for ARG Analysis

Category	Specific Resource	Function/Purpose	Application Context
Reference Databases	CARD [39]	Comprehensive ARG annotation with ontological organization	General ARG detection, clinical isolates
	NCRD [21]	Non-redundant comprehensive ARG detection	Environmental metagenomics, novel ARG discovery
	PLSDB [36]	Plasmid sequence database for mobility analysis	Horizontal gene transfer studies
Bioinformatics Tools	AMRFinderPlus [7]	Comprehensive ARG annotation including mutations	Bacterial genome analysis
	ResFinder [7]	Focused acquired resistance gene detection	Epidemiological studies
	ProtAlign-ARG [29]	Hybrid protein language model and alignment	Novel ARG variant detection
Experimental Validation	VITEK2 [42]	Automated antimicrobial susceptibility testing	Phenotypic validation of genotypic predictions
	Broth microdilution [43]	Reference AST method	Phenotype-genotype correlation studies
Sequencing Technologies	Illumina short-read [43]	High-accuracy sequencing	Reference genome assembly, mutation detection
	Long-read platforms	Complete genome assembly	Mobile genetic element context analysis

Integrating ARG Analysis into One Health Surveillance Frameworks

Conceptual Framework for One Health ARG Surveillance

Effective integration of ARG analysis into One Health surveillance requires coordinated data collection, analysis, and interpretation across human, animal, and environmental sectors. The ISSE (Integrated Surveillance System Evaluation) framework provides a structured approach with five evaluation components: [1] capacity to integrate a One Health approach, [2] production of OH information and expertise, [3] generation of actionable knowledge, [4] influence on decision-making, and [5] positive impact on outcomes [40].

Diagram 2: One Health ARG surveillance framework

Incorporating ARG Mobility in Risk Assessment

A critical advancement in One Health ARG surveillance is the integration of mobility potential into risk assessment frameworks. Current methodologies often overlook the genetic context of ARGs, potentially overestimating or underestimating risk [5]. High-risk scenarios involve ARGs associated with mobile genetic elements (MGEs) in pathogens connected to treatment failures [5].

Surveillance systems can incorporate mobility analysis through:

• Plasmid Detection: Using databases like PLSDB to identify plasmid-associated ARGs [36].

• MGE Annotation: Tools like MobileElementFinder detect insertion sequences, transposons, and integrons linked to ARGs [43].

• Contextual Analysis: Long-read sequencing enables complete assembly of ARG-carrying vectors to assess transfer potential [5].

ProtAlign-ARG exemplifies tools extending beyond simple ARG identification to predict functionality and mobility, enhancing risk prioritization [29]. Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment (QMRA) frameworks increasingly incorporate these mobility metrics to better characterize transmission risks at human-animal-environment interfaces [5].

Implementation Challenges and Solutions

Implementing integrated One Health ARG surveillance faces several challenges:

• Data Heterogeneity: Disparate data collection methods, semantic inconsistencies, and varying informatics capacity across sectors [41].
• Governance Complexity: Data jurisdiction and organizational mandates differ between public health, animal health, and environmental agencies [41].
• Resource Limitations: Funding often allocated vertically within sectors with limited cross-sector resources [41].

Successful implementations address these challenges through:

• Structured Coordination: Establishing cross-agency collaborative groups with regular meetings [41].

• Tiered Surveillance Approaches: Balancing comprehensive characterization with practical implementation constraints [5].

• Modern Data Infrastructure: Utilizing APIs, cloud computing, and interoperable standards to facilitate data integration [41].

The integration of ARG analysis into One Health surveillance frameworks requires careful selection of appropriate databases and tools based on specific surveillance objectives. Curated databases like CARD provide high specificity for clinical applications, while comprehensive resources like NCRD offer broader detection capability for environmental surveillance where novel ARGs may be encountered. Experimental evidence demonstrates that database choice significantly impacts detection sensitivity and specificity, with recent hybrid approaches like ProtAlign-ARG showing promise for balancing these competing demands.

Future developments should focus on standardizing evaluation metrics, improving ARG mobility annotation, and enhancing interoperability between database resources. As surveillance systems evolve, incorporating mechanistic insights about ARG mobilization and transfer potential will enable more accurate risk assessment and targeted interventions across One Health sectors. The continued benchmarking of ARG databases against standardized datasets with phenotypic correlation remains essential for advancing the field and effectively combating the global AMR crisis.

Overcoming Analytical Hurdles: Addressing Gaps, Context Limitations, and Data Challenges in ARG Detection

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) presents a global health challenge, with an estimated 1.27 million deaths globally in 2019 attributed to resistant infections [20]. The rapid proliferation of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) undermines the efficacy of existing treatments and threatens decades of medical progress [2]. While significant advances have been made in detecting known ARGs, a critical gap remains in identifying emerging resistance determinants that lack experimental validation or exist outside current database classifications. These non-validated ARGs represent a potential reservoir of undiscovered resistance mechanisms that could compromise clinical interventions.

The advent of next-generation sequencing technologies, coupled with sophisticated bioinformatics algorithms, has revolutionized our capacity to probe the environmental resistome [2]. However, the selection of appropriate ARG resources remains challenging due to significant variability in database structures, data curation methodologies, annotation depth, and coverage of resistance determinants [2]. This comparison guide objectively evaluates current computational strategies and experimental frameworks designed specifically to address these limitations, providing researchers with validated methodologies for uncovering novel resistance genes.

Database Comparison: Coverage and Limitations

Current ARG Database Landscape

ARG databases serve as essential references for identifying and annotating resistance genes in genomic and metagenomic datasets [2]. These resources can be broadly classified into two categories: manually curated databases that prioritize quality through expert validation, and consolidated databases that emphasize comprehensive coverage through data aggregation [2].

Table 1: Comparison of Major ARG Databases and Their Characteristics

Database	Type	Primary Focus	Update Status	Sequence Count	Key Strengths	Key Limitations
CARD [2]	Manually curated	Known ARGs with experimental validation	Regularly updated	2,498 reference sequences	Rigorous curation standards, ontology-driven framework	Limited coverage of emerging genes without experimental validation
ResFinder/PointFinder [2]	Manually curated	Acquired ARGs & chromosomal mutations	Regularly updated	N/A	Specialized in point mutations and acquired genes	Limited to known variants with established resistance profiles
SARG [21]	Consolidated	Structured ARG hierarchy	Regularly updated	12,085 protein sequences	Hierarchical structure facilitating ARG classification	Limited to high-quality reference sequences
ARDB [21] [2]	Consolidated	Broad ARG coverage	Not updated since 2009	23,136 protein sequences	Historical comprehensive coverage	No recent updates, missing emerging ARGs
NCRD [21]	Consolidated	Non-redundant comprehensive ARG collection	Recently developed	710,231 protein sequences	Extensive coverage, reduced redundancy	Potential inclusion of false positives without rigorous filtering

Quantitative Performance Assessment

Recent benchmarking studies have revealed substantial differences in database performance for ARG detection. When comparing the completeness of gene annotations produced by different database-tool combinations, significant variations emerge in their capacity to detect potential resistance determinants [18].

Table 2: Database Performance in ARG Detection Across Environmental Niches

Database	Subtypes of ARGs	ARG Detection Capacity	Advantages for Emerging ARG Detection	Best Suited Applications
CARD	338	Moderate	High-quality references, mechanistic information	Clinical surveillance, validated ARG tracking
SARG	225	Moderate	Hierarchical classification	Environmental monitoring, ARG categorization
ARDB	180	Low	Historical context, broad original coverage	Retrospective analyses, historical comparisons
NCRD	444	High	Extensive sequence collection, novel gene discovery	Comprehensive resistome profiling, novel ARG mining

The NCRD database demonstrates particular strength in detecting potential ARGs, identifying 30% more ARG subtypes compared to CARD and 97% more compared to SARG [21]. This extensive coverage makes consolidated databases particularly valuable for initial screening of metagenomic datasets where novel resistance genes may be present.

Computational Strategies for Novel ARG Identification

Machine Learning and Deep Learning Approaches

Machine learning algorithms have emerged as powerful tools for identifying novel ARGs that evade detection by traditional homology-based methods. Tools such as DeepARG and HMD-ARG utilize deep learning models trained on known ARG sequences to predict novel resistance genes based on abstract feature representations rather than direct sequence similarity [2]. These approaches are particularly valuable for detecting distant ARG homologs that share structural or functional characteristics with known resistance genes but lack sufficient sequence similarity for BLAST-based identification.

The "minimal model" approach represents another machine learning strategy that uses only known resistance markers to predict phenotypes, with performance gaps indicating where novel resistance mechanisms likely exist [18]. This method has proven effective for identifying knowledge gaps in known AMR mechanisms, particularly in bacteria with open pangenomes that acquire novel variation rapidly, such as Klebsiella pneumoniae [18].

Assembly-Free and Graph-Based Methods

Traditional assembly-based approaches often fail to detect ARGs in complex metagenomic samples due to information loss during the assembly process, particularly for low-abundance genes [44]. The ALR (ARG-like reads) method addresses this limitation by prescreening ARG-like reads directly from total metagenomic datasets before assembly [44]. This approach offers several advantages:

• Enables detection of low-abundance ARG hosts with higher accuracy in complex environments [44]
• Reduces computation time by approximately 44-96% compared to strategies relying on assembled contigs and genomes [44]
• Establishes a direct relationship between the abundance of ARGs and their hosts [44]

For contextual analysis, ARGContextProfiler extracts and scores genomic contexts of ARGs using assembly graphs rather than linear contigs [20]. This approach minimizes chimeric errors common in conventional assembly outputs and provides superior accuracy, precision, and sensitivity for identifying ARG genomic neighborhoods [20]. Understanding whether an ARG is carried in the chromosome or on mobile genetic elements is critical for assessing its mobility potential and transmission risk [20].

The following diagram illustrates the core workflow for novel ARG discovery using integrated computational approaches:

Diagram 1: Computational workflow for novel ARG identification integrating multiple bioinformatics strategies

Advanced Binning Strategies for ARG Host Identification

Metagenomic binning tools have evolved significantly in their capacity to recover metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) that serve as hosts for ARGs. Recent benchmarking of 13 metagenomic binning tools across various sequencing platforms revealed that multi-sample binning demonstrates remarkable superiority over single-sample approaches, identifying 30% more potential ARG hosts in short-read data, 22% more in long-read data, and 25% more in hybrid sequencing data [45].

Notably, tools such as COMEBin and MetaBinner ranked first in most data-binning combinations, while MetaBAT 2, VAMB, and MetaDecoder were highlighted as efficient binners due to their excellent scalability [45]. The integration of bin refinement tools like MetaWRAP and MAGScoT further enhanced the recovery of high-quality MAGs containing ARGs [45].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

ALR-Based Host Identification Protocol

The ARG-like reads (ALR) strategy provides a robust methodology for rapid identification of ARG hosts in complex metagenomic samples [44]. The protocol consists of two complementary pipelines:

ALR1 Pipeline (Assembly-Free):

• Clean reads are searched against the Structured Antibiotic Resistance Genes (SARG) database using UBLAST (e-value ≤10⁻⁵) [44]
• Potential matched reads are further aligned against SARG using BLASTX (e-value ≤10⁻⁷, sequence identity ≥80%, hit length ≥75%) [44]
• Target reads are taxonomically assigned using Kraken2 with the GTDB database (r89) [44]
• Candidate ARG-carrying taxa with more than ten sequences are retained for analysis [44]

ALR2 Pipeline (Assembly-Based):

• Potential matched reads obtained in the ALR1 pipeline are assembled into contigs (>500 bp) using MEGAHIT [44]
• Prodigal with a meta-model predicts open reading frames (ORFs) [44]
• Protein sequences of ORFs are searched against SARG with BLASTP (e-value ≤10⁻⁵, identity ≥80%, query coverage ≥70%) [44]
• Contigs carrying ARG-like ORFs are identified as ARG-carrying contigs (ACCs) [44]
• Taxonomic annotation and relative abundance calculation complete the analysis [44]

This combined approach has demonstrated 83.9-88.9% accuracy for ARG-host identification in high-diversity datasets and can detect hosts at extremely low abundance (1X coverage) [44].

Genomic Context Extraction Protocol

ARGContextProfiler provides a sophisticated methodology for extracting genomic contexts of ARGs from metagenomic assembly graphs [20]:

• Input Processing: Paired-end short reads undergo quality control and are assembled using metaSPAdes to generate assembly graphs [20]
• Query Gene Mapping: Target ARGs are mapped to nodes of the assembly graphs and grouped based on their locations [20]
• Gene Instance Identification: The pipeline traverses the graph, extracting paths that represent each gene instance [20]
• Neighborhood Extraction: For each gene instance, neighboring upstream and downstream regions are retrieved [20]
• Chimera Filtering: A series of filters corroborating read pair consistency and coverage variations eliminate chimeric neighborhoods [20]
• Context Validation: Extracted contexts are validated through read mapping and comparative analysis [20]

This method has demonstrated superior performance compared to conventional assembly-based approaches, particularly for mobile ARGs that exist in multiple genomic contexts and are frequently linked to repetitive sequences [20].

Benchmarking Framework for ARG Detection

A community-driven benchmarking initiative has proposed a standardized framework for evaluating ARG detection methods [46]. Key components include:

• Reference Dataset Generation: Well-characterized datasets encompassing diverse resistance mechanisms and pathogens [46]
• Performance Metrics Definition: Standardized evaluation criteria including sensitivity, specificity, precision, and computational efficiency [46]
• Tool Comparison Protocol: Systematic assessment of bioinformatics pipelines across different use cases [46]
• Quality Control Implementation: Continuous validation and quality-control procedures to ensure consistent performance [46]

This framework enables meaningful comparison between different ARG detection strategies and facilitates the identification of optimal approaches for specific research scenarios [46].

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for ARG Discovery Studies

Category	Specific Tool/Resource	Primary Function	Application in Emerging ARG Research
ARG Databases	CARD [2]	Reference for known ARGs	Baseline for novel ARG identification
	NCRD [21]	Comprehensive non-redundant ARG collection	Discovery of divergent ARG variants
Annotation Tools	AMRFinderPlus [18]	ARG annotation in genomic data	Detection of known and putative ARGs
	DeepARG [2] [18]	Machine learning-based ARG prediction	Identification of novel ARG candidates
Binning Tools	COMEBin [45]	Metagenomic binning using contrastive learning	Recovery of ARG-host genomes from complex samples
	MetaBAT 2 [45]	Statistical framework for binning	Efficient MAG recovery for host identification
Context Analysis	ARGContextProfiler [20]	Genomic context extraction	Mobility risk assessment for novel ARGs
Workflow Management	MetaWRAP [45]	Binning refinement pipeline	Quality enhancement of ARG-containing MAGs

No single strategy currently addresses all challenges in emerging ARG identification. Instead, an integrated approach combining multiple databases, machine learning algorithms, and advanced binning strategies provides the most comprehensive solution for filling gaps in our understanding of the resistome. The ALR method offers computational efficiency and sensitivity for low-abundance genes [44], while graph-based approaches like ARGContextProfiler enable crucial contextual analysis for risk assessment [20]. Consolidated databases such as NCRD substantially expand coverage of potential resistance determinants [21], and multi-sample binning strategies significantly enhance recovery of ARG hosts from complex environments [45].

Future directions in ARG discovery will likely involve more sophisticated integration of machine learning with functional metagenomics, expanded longitudinal monitoring of high-risk environments, and development of standardized benchmarking resources that evolve with the AMR field [46]. As sequencing technologies continue to advance and computational methods become more refined, our capacity to identify and characterize emerging antibiotic resistance genes before they enter clinical settings will be crucial for maintaining the efficacy of antimicrobial therapies.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a major global health threat, contributing to an estimated 4.71 million deaths annually worldwide [47]. The mobility of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) across microbial populations via mobile genetic elements (MGEs) plays a crucial role in the dissemination of resistance across One Health settings (human, animal, and environmental compartments) [47] [48]. Current environmental surveillance often overlooks the significance of ARG mobility, limiting risk assessment accuracy and creating what we term "contextual blind spots" – gaps in our understanding of the genetic and host contexts that determine ARG transmission potential [47].

Traditional ARG detection methods that focus solely on abundance quantification provide an incomplete picture of AMR risk. An ARG found chromosomally in a non-pathogenic, indigenous bacterium presents a different risk profile than the same gene located on a conjugative plasmid within a human pathogen [47]. Resolving these blind spots requires advanced techniques that capture ARG-MGE associations and their bacterial host contexts. This guide compares current methodologies and databases for contextual ARG analysis, providing experimental protocols and performance data to inform research and surveillance strategies.

ARG databases serve as essential references for identifying and annotating resistance genes in genomic and metagenomic datasets. The structural and curation approaches of these databases significantly impact their ability to support contextual ARG analysis involving MGEs.

Table 1: Comparison of Major ARG Databases for Contextual Analysis

Database	Primary Focus	Curation Approach	MGE Context	Key Strengths	Notable Limitations
CARD [2]	Comprehensive AMR data	Manual expert curation with Antibiotic Resistance Ontology (ARO)	Limited MGE association data	Rigorous quality standards; Detailed mechanism annotation	Slow updates due to manual curation; May miss emerging genes
ResFinder/PointFinder [2]	Acquired ARGs & chromosomal mutations	Specialized manual curation	Limited direct MGE annotation	Excellent for clinical pathogens; Integrated mutation detection	Narrower focus primarily on acquired resistance
NCRD [21]	Non-redundant comprehensive ARG collection	Consolidated from multiple databases	No specific MGE focus	Extensive sequence coverage (710,231 proteins); 444 ARG subtypes	Potential inclusion of false positives without filtering
SARG [2]	Structured ARG reference	Semi-automated consolidation	Limited MGE context	Hierarchical structure useful for classification	Moderate sequence coverage compared to consolidated databases

The benchmarking analysis reveals a critical trade-off between curation quality and sequence coverage. Manually curated databases like CARD and ResFinder provide high-confidence annotations but potentially miss novel or emerging ARGs. Consolidated databases like NCRD offer broader sequence coverage essential for detecting divergent ARG variants but require additional filtering to reduce false positives [21] [2]. NCRD demonstrates particularly strong performance in metagenomic analyses, identifying greater ARG diversity than earlier databases [21].

For MGE-focused analyses, researchers should note that most general ARG databases provide limited direct MGE contextual information. Specialized tools and additional analysis steps are required to establish ARG-MGE associations, as discussed in subsequent sections.

Advanced Detection Frameworks: Integrating Mobility into ARG Identification

Novel computational frameworks are emerging that specifically address the challenge of detecting ARG mobility by integrating multiple analytical approaches.

Hybrid Methods for Enhanced ARG Characterization

ProtAlign-ARG represents a significant methodological advancement as a hybrid model that combines pre-trained protein language models with alignment-based scoring [29]. This integration enables the tool to identify ARGs with greater accuracy, particularly for novel or divergent sequences that might be missed by conventional alignment-based methods alone.

Table 2: Performance Comparison of ARG Detection Tools

Tool	Methodological Approach	Mobility Prediction	Key Advantages	Performance Notes
ProtAlign-ARG [29]	Hybrid: Protein language model + alignment scoring	Yes, includes dedicated mobility identification model	Detects novel variants; Balances sensitivity & specificity	Superior recall compared to alignment-only tools
DeepARG [2]	Deep learning	Limited mobility focus	Effective for novel ARG detection	Performance depends on training data completeness
HMD-ARG [29] [2]	Hierarchical multi-task classification	No specific mobility module	Comprehensive coverage of ARG classes	Leverages multiple database sources
AMRFinderPlus [2]	Alignment-based	Limited direct MGE annotation	Excellent for well-characterized ARGs	May miss novel or highly divergent genes

The ProtAlign-ARG framework employs four distinct models dedicated to: (1) ARG identification, (2) ARG class classification, (3) ARG mobility identification, and (4) ARG resistance mechanism prediction [29]. This multi-task approach enables comprehensive characterization of resistance determinants beyond simple presence/absence detection. In benchmarking studies, ProtAlign-ARG demonstrated remarkable accuracy, particularly excelling in recall compared to existing tools, highlighting its ability to identify true positives in complex samples [29].

Experimental Protocol for Hybrid ARG-Mobility Analysis

For researchers implementing ProtAlign-ARG, the following experimental protocol provides a framework for comprehensive ARG mobility analysis:

Input Data Requirements:

• Whole genome sequencing data of bacterial isolates or metagenomic sequencing data
• Protein sequences translated from DNA sequencing data
• Quality-controlled assemblies for contextual analysis

Implementation Workflow:

• Data Preprocessing: Translate DNA sequences to protein sequences and perform quality filtering
• Feature Extraction: Generate protein language model embeddings for sequence representation
• Confidence Assessment: Evaluate model confidence for each sequence prediction
• Hybrid Classification: For high-confidence sequences, use PPLM-based prediction; for low-confidence sequences, employ alignment-based scoring with bit scores and e-values
• Mobility Prediction: Apply dedicated mobility identification model to classify ARG mobility potential
• Contextual Integration: Correlate mobility predictions with taxonomic assignments

Validation Approach:

• Compare results with known MGE-associated ARGs from clinical isolates
• Verify predictions with complementary methods like epicPCR or exogenous plasmid capture
• Assess consistency across different similarity thresholds (40%, 90%) for robust detection

This hybrid approach is particularly valuable for detecting emerging ARG variants that may not yet be well-represented in curated databases but pose mobility risks due to their genetic context [29].

Figure 1: Workflow for Hybrid ARG and Mobility Detection. This integrated approach combines protein language models (PPLM) with traditional alignment methods for comprehensive ARG characterization, including mobility potential assessment.

Metagenomic Resolution: Binning Approaches for Host-MGE Association Analysis

Metagenomic binning represents a powerful culture-free approach for recovering metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs), enabling the association of ARGs with their bacterial hosts and MGE contexts.

Benchmarking Binning Performance Across Data Types

Recent comprehensive benchmarking of 13 metagenomic binning tools across multiple data types and binning modes provides critical insights for designing ARG host association studies [45].

Table 3: Performance of Binning Modes for ARG Host Identification

Binning Mode	Data Type	MQ MAGs Recovery	NC MAGs Recovery	Potential ARG Hosts Identified	Implementation Considerations
Multi-sample	Short-read	100% more than single-sample	194% more than single-sample	30% more than single-sample	Computationally intensive but superior results
Single-sample	Short-read	Baseline	Baseline	Baseline	Faster but limited contextual data
Multi-sample	Long-read	50% more than single-sample	55% more than single-sample	22% more than single-sample	Requires larger sample numbers for optimal benefit
Co-assembly	Short-read	Fewest recovered	Fewest recovered	Not reported	Prone to inter-sample chimeric contigs

The benchmarking data clearly demonstrates that multi-sample binning significantly outperforms other approaches across all data types in recovering moderate-quality (MQ) and near-complete (NC) MAGs, directly translating to enhanced ability to identify potential ARG hosts [45]. Specifically, multi-sample binning identified 30%, 22%, and 25% more potential ARG hosts compared to single-sample binning in short-read, long-read, and hybrid data respectively [45].

Experimental Protocol for Host-MGE Association via Binning

Sample Preparation and Sequencing:

• Collect multiple samples from the same environment (recommended: ≥15 samples for long-read, ≥5 for short-read)
• Extract high-molecular-weight DNA suitable for preferred sequencing platform
• Sequence using either short-read (Illumina), long-read (PacBio HiFi, Nanopore), or hybrid approaches

Bioinformatic Processing:

• Quality Control: Trim adapters and filter low-quality reads using FastQC and bbduk2 [49]
• Assembly: Perform de novo assembly using Spades or other metagenome-assemblers with multiple k-mer sizes [49]
• Binning Implementation: Apply top-performing binners identified in benchmarks:
  • For short-read data: COMEBin, MetaBinner, or Binny [45]
  • For long-read data: COMEBin, SemiBin2, or MetaBAT 2 [45]
  • Consider tool ensembles for improved results
• Binning Refinement: Use MetaWRAP, DAS Tool, or MAGScoT to combine and refine bins from multiple tools [45]

ARG and MGE Annotation:

• ARG Identification: Annotate ARGs in contigs using ResFinder or similar tools [49]
• MGE Prediction: Identify MGEs using MobileElementFinder or specialized databases [49]
• Host Association: Map ARG-containing contigs to binned MAGs to establish host relationships
• Mobility Risk Assessment: Classify ARG risk based on host pathogenicity and MGE associations

Validation and Quality Control:

• Assess MAG quality using CheckM2 with thresholds: >50% completeness, <10% contamination for MQ MAGs; >90% completeness, <5% contamination for NC MAGs [45]
• Verify host assignments through taxonomic classification of MAGs
• Control for overrepresentation of specific lineages by limiting isolates per species and location [49]

Figure 2: Metagenomic Binning Strategy for ARG Host Association. Multi-sample binning outperforms other approaches for recovering quality MAGs, enabling more accurate association of ARGs with their bacterial hosts and MGE contexts.

Research Reagent Solutions: Essential Tools for MGE-ARG Studies

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for ARG-MGE Analysis

Resource Category	Specific Tool/Database	Primary Function	Application Notes
ARG Databases	NCRD [21]	Non-redundant comprehensive ARG detection	Particularly effective for detecting potential ARGs in environmental samples
	CARD [2]	Curated reference for resistance mechanisms	Gold standard for well-characterized ARGs with ontological organization
MGE Detection	MobileElementFinder [49]	Prediction of diverse MGE types	Updated version includes 1,686 IS and 70 Tn elements
	ISfinder [48]	Specialized insertion sequence database	Centralized resource for IS nomenclature and classification
Bioinformatic Tools	ProtAlign-ARG [29]	Hybrid ARG detection with mobility prediction	Integrates protein language models with alignment scoring
	COMEBin [45]	Metagenomic binning	Top-performer in multiple data-binning combinations
	MetaWRAP [45]	Bin refinement	Combines multiple binning results for improved MAG quality
Analysis Pipelines	ResFinder [49] [2]	ARG identification from assemblies	Includes PointFinder for chromosomal mutations
	GraphPart [29]	Data partitioning for benchmarking	Superior to CDHIT for precise training-testing separation

Resolving contextual blind spots in ARG monitoring requires integrating multiple complementary approaches. No single database or tool currently provides comprehensive ARG-MGE contextual analysis, necessitating strategic combinations of resources.

Based on our comparative analysis, the most effective strategy employs: (1) consolidated databases like NCRD for broad ARG detection coverage, supplemented by (2) curated resources like CARD for mechanism annotation, (3) hybrid tools like ProtAlign-ARG for mobility prediction, and (4) multi-sample binning with high-performing algorithms like COMEBin for host association. This integrated approach enables researchers to move beyond simple ARG quantification toward genuine risk assessment based on mobility potential and host context.

As methodological advances continue improving our ability to detect ARG mobility, integration of these techniques into environmental AMR surveillance and quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) frameworks becomes increasingly feasible [47]. Future developments should focus on standardizing MGE annotation in ARG databases and creating unified platforms that seamlessly connect ARG detection with mobility assessment and host attribution.

Mitigating Chimeric Errors and Assembly Fragmentation in Complex Metagenomes

Metagenomic analysis provides unparalleled insight into microbial communities but is critically hampered by chimeric errors and assembly fragmentation. These issues compromise the recovery of complete genomes and accurate functional profiling, particularly for antimicrobial resistance (ARG) research. This guide objectively compares state-of-the-art tools and strategies—spanning assembly algorithms, binning methods, and sequencing technologies—based on recent benchmarking studies. We summarize quantitative performance data and detail experimental protocols to equip researchers with methodologies for achieving high-fidelity metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) in complex samples.

The accurate reconstruction of genomes from complex microbial communities is a cornerstone of modern microbial ecology and antimicrobial resistance surveillance. However, two persistent technical challenges are chimeric errors (incorrectly joined sequences from different genomic regions or organisms) and assembly fragmentation (incomplete reconstruction of genomes into numerous short contigs). These artifacts arise from biological complexities like strain diversity and repetitive elements, as well as technical limitations of sequencing technologies and bioinformatic algorithms [50] [51].

Fragmented assemblies and chimeras directly impact downstream analyses: they obscure the genetic context of ARGs, including their linkage to mobile genetic elements (MGEs), and hinder the accurate taxonomic classification and functional characterization of microorganisms [5] [52]. Overcoming these limitations is thus crucial for reliable risk assessment of environmental resistomes. This guide benchmarks current solutions, providing a data-driven resource for improving metagenomic assembly quality.

Tool Performance Comparison

Long-Read Assemblers for Metagenomics

Long-read sequencing technologies, particularly PacBio HiFi, have revolutionized metagenome assembly by generating reads that are both long and highly accurate. The table below compares the performance of three leading long-read metagenomic assemblers based on a 2024 benchmark study [51].

Table 1: Performance Comparison of HiFi Metagenomic Assemblers

Assembler	Algorithm Type	Key Features	Circularized Near-Complete MAGs (Human Gut Dataset)	Strengths
metaMDBG	Minimizer-space de Bruijn Graph	Iterative assembly with abundance-based filtering	75 [51]	Best recovery of circularized MAGs and plasmids; handles strain diversity well
hifiasm-meta	String Graph	Uses read-overlap graphs and minimizers	62 [51]	Competitive for strain resolution
metaFlye	Repeat Graph	Assembles disjointigs into a repeat graph	<62 (exact number not reported) [51]	Established tool; good for noisy long reads

The benchmark, conducted on a real human gut microbiome dataset, demonstrated that metaMDBG significantly outperforms other tools in recovering circularized, near-complete MAGs, which are considered the gold standard for assembly quality as they indicate a fully reconstructed genome [51]. Its use of a minimizer-space de Bruijn graph and local progressive abundance filter allows it to efficiently untangle complex metagenomic mixtures and reduce errors caused by strain-level variation [51].

Benchmarking Binning Tools Across Data and Binning Modes

After assembly, contigs must be grouped into MAGs through a process called binning. The performance of binning tools is heavily influenced by the sequencing data type and the binning strategy employed. A comprehensive 2025 benchmark of 13 binning tools revealed clear performance trends [45].

Table 2: Top-Performing Binning Tools and Strategies

Data-Binning Combination	Top-Performing Tools (In Order)	Key Finding	Potential ARG Hosts in Marine Data (vs. Single-Sample)
Short-Read, Multi-Sample	1. COMEBin2. MetaBinner3. VAMB	Multi-sample binning recovered 100% more near-complete MAGs than single-sample in marine data [45].	+30% [45]
Long-Read, Multi-Sample	1. COMEBin2. SemiBin23. MetaBinner	Multi-sample binning recovered 55% more near-complete MAGs in marine data [45].	+22% [45]
Hybrid, Multi-Sample	1. MetaBinner2. COMEBin3. SemiBin2	Multi-sample binning consistently outperformed single-sample across datasets [45].	+25% [45]

The study conclusively showed that multi-sample binning (using coverage information across multiple related samples) substantially outperforms single-sample binning across all data types—short-read, long-read, and hybrid [45]. This approach recovered up to twice as many high-quality MAGs in a marine dataset. Furthermore, multi-sample binning proved superior in identifying a greater number of potential hosts for antibiotic resistance genes and biosynthetic gene clusters, which is critical for understanding ARG mobility and risk [45].

Among tools, COMEBin and MetaBinner consistently ranked as top performers by leveraging advanced machine learning and ensemble methods to generate robust contig groupings [45].

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking

To ensure the reproducibility and reliability of assembly and binning benchmarks, standardized experimental protocols and quality assessment pipelines are essential.

Generating a Gold-Standard Benchmarking Dataset

A community-accepted protocol for creating a "gold-standard" genomic and metagenomic dataset for benchmarking ARG detection and assembly methods was established during the Microbial Bioinformatics Hackathon 2021 [53].

Protocol:

• Genome Selection: Prioritize complete genomes of clinically relevant pathogens (e.g., ESKAPE pathogens, Salmonella spp.) from the NCBI Repository.
• Data Validation:
  • Assemble downloaded Illumina reads using shovill (with SPAdes and Skesa assemblers).
  • Map reads back to the reference genome using SNIPPY. Exclude genomes with >200 kb of zero read coverage or >10 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) between the reads and the reference assembly.
  • Ensure final read coverage depth is >40x.
• AMR Gene Annotation: Predict ARGs in each assembly using the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD) and its Resistance Gene Identifier (RGI) software [53].
• Simulated Metagenome Generation:
  • Use a reproducible workflow (e.g., nextflow) to combine the validated genomes.
  • Amplify genomes following a log-normal distribution to mimic natural species abundance.
  • Simulate paired-end reads (e.g., 250 bp) from the combined sequence using a tool like ART with an appropriate error profile (e.g., Illumina MiSeqV3) [53].

Quality Assessment of Metagenome-Assembled Genomes (MAGs)

The MAGqual pipeline provides a standardized, automated method to assess the quality of MAGs according to the Minimum Information about a Metagenome-Assembled Genome (MIMAG) standards [54].

Protocol:

• Input: A set of MAGs in FASTA format and the metagenomic assembly from which they were derived.
• Completeness and Contamination:
  • Run CheckM or CheckM2 to estimate genome completeness and contamination using a set of conserved, single-copy marker genes [45] [54].
  • Quality Tiers: MAGs are typically classified as:
    • Near-complete: >90% completeness, <5% contamination.
    • High-quality: >70% completeness, <10% contamination.
    • Medium-quality: >50% completeness, <10% contamination [45].
• Assembly Quality:
  • Run Bakta to identify the presence and completeness of rRNA and tRNA genes within the MAG [54].
• Automated Reporting:
  • MAGqual integrates the results from CheckM and Bakta to assign a final quality category to each MAG and generates a comprehensive report and summary figures [54].

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Item Name	Function/Brief Explanation	Example Use Case
PacBio HiFi Reads	Long reads (≥10,000 bp) with very high accuracy (≈99.9%).	Provides the length needed to span repeats and the accuracy for precise assembly, enabling circularized MAGs [51].
SARG Database	A structured database of antibiotic resistance genes.	Used for annotating ARGs from metagenomic reads or contigs with a defined identity/coverage cutoff (e.g., 75%/90%) [52] [10].
MobileOG-db	A database of proteins associated with Mobile Genetic Elements (MGEs).	Identifying MGEs linked to ARGs to assess horizontal gene transfer potential [52].
CheckM2	Software for assessing MAG quality (completeness/contamination).	The industry standard for evaluating and tiering the quality of recovered MAGs post-binning [45].
Centrifuge	A rapid and memory-efficient taxonomic classification system.	Identifying reads originating from Human Bacterial Pathogens (HBPs) for risk assessment [52].
Nanopore Sequencing	Technology generating long reads in real-time; lower accuracy than HiFi but higher throughput.	Rapid in-field sequencing; often requires hybrid assembly or polishing for high-fidelity MAGs [55] [56].

A Workflow for Robust Metagenomic Analysis

The following diagram synthesizes the key steps and recommended tools into a cohesive strategy for mitigating chimerism and fragmentation.

Mitigating Errors in Metagenomic Analysis

This workflow integrates the most effective strategies identified in recent benchmarks: selecting appropriate sequencing technology, using modern assemblers like metaMDBG, applying mandatory multi-sample binning with top-performing tools like COMEBin, and rigorously assessing output quality with MAGqual and CheckM2 before proceeding to biological interpretation [51] [45] [54].

Addressing chimeric errors and assembly fragmentation requires a integrated approach combining wet-lab and computational best practices. The quantitative data presented in this guide firmly establishes that leveraging PacBio HiFi reads, assemblers like metaMDBG, and multi-sample binning strategies with tools such as COMEBin currently represents the most effective methodology for recovering high-quality, near-complete MAGs from complex metagenomes.

For researchers focused on ARG mobility and risk, this refined assembly and binning output is foundational. It enables more accurate determination of ARG hosts and their genetic context, directly improving risk assessment frameworks like L-ARRI that depend on confidently linking ARGs, MGEs, and pathogens [5] [52]. As sequencing technologies and algorithms continue to advance, the benchmarks and protocols outlined here will provide a baseline for evaluating new tools and ensuring the continued reliability of metagenomic science.

Optimizing for Scalability and Performance in High-Throughput Sequencing Environments

The rapid expansion of publicly available sequencing data sets necessitates bioinformatics tools that are not only accurate but also highly efficient and scalable. As projects increasingly involve hundreds of whole genomes or complex metagenomic samples, the computational demands for data processing and analysis have grown exponentially [57]. The challenge is particularly acute in fields like antibiotic resistance gene (ARG) profiling, where researchers must balance comprehensive database coverage with computational practicality. This guide objectively compares the performance of contemporary bioinformatics tools designed for high-throughput sequencing environments, providing experimental data and methodologies to inform selection for large-scale genomic studies.

Performance Comparison of High-Throughput Sequencing Tools

Tool Performance Metrics

The following table summarizes key performance metrics for recently developed tools based on published benchmark studies.

Table 1: Performance Metrics of High-Throughput Sequencing Analysis Tools

Tool	Primary Function	Accuracy Metrics	Speed & Scalability	Resource Requirements
SINGER [58]	ARG sampling from posterior distribution	Most accurate coalescence times; lowest triplet distances	100x faster than ARGweaver; handles hundreds of WGS	Efficient MCMC mixing for large sample sizes
Meteor2 [59]	Metagenomic taxonomic, functional, strain profiling (TFSP)	45% better species detection sensitivity; 35% more accurate abundance estimation	2.3 min taxonomic, 10 min strain analysis (10M reads)	~5 GB RAM footprint
ARGContextProfiler [20]	ARG genomic context extraction	Superior accuracy, precision, sensitivity vs. assembly-based methods	Leverages assembly graphs; minimizes chimeric errors	Optimized for short-read metagenomic data
rdeval [57]	Sequencing read evaluation & format conversion	Comprehensive read metrics; visual reports	Dramatic compression gains with read 'sketches'	Cross-platform (Linux, MacOS, Windows)
MinKNOW/Readfish [60]	Nanopore adaptive sampling	1.50- to 4.86-fold coverage increase of targets	Real-time classification; maintains channel activity	CPU/GPU options for diverse target references

Specialized Tool Capabilities

Table 2: Specialized Capabilities and Applications

Tool	Sequencing Applications	Unique Features	Implementation
SINGER [58]	Whole-genome sequencing (hundreds of genomes)	Bayesian inference with uncertainty quantification; robust to model misspecification	MCMC with sub-graph pruning and re-grafting (SGPR)
Meteor2 [59]	Shotgun metagenomics (10 ecosystems)	Environment-specific microbial gene catalogues; TFSP integration	Bowtie2 alignment with unique/total/shared counting modes
ARGContextProfiler [20]	Metagenomic ARG context analysis	Genomic neighborhood extraction from assembly graphs	metaSPAdes assembly with read-pair consistency filtering
rdeval [57]	Cross-platform sequencing read QC	Read 'sketching' for compressed statistics storage; format conversion	C++ for processing, R for visualization
Adaptive Sampling Tools [60]	Nanopore target enrichment/host depletion	Real-time read ejection; nucleotide alignment or deep learning	Guppy/minimap2 strategy for highest classification accuracy

Experimental Protocols for Tool Benchmarking

Benchmarking ARG Inference Methods (SINGER)

Experimental Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of genome-wide genealogical inference for hundreds of whole-genome sequences.

Methodology Details:

• Data Simulation: Used msprime [58] to generate simulated sequence data with known genealogies under various demographic models.
• Comparison Cohort: Evaluated SINGER against ARGweaver, Relate, tsinfer+tsdate, and ARG-Needle using identical datasets.
• Accuracy Metrics:
  • Coalescence time accuracy: Compared pairwise coalescence times for 100 randomly chosen leaf-node pairs against ground truth [58].
  • Tree topology accuracy: Calculated triplet distance (fraction of three-leaved subtrees with different topologies).
  • Lineage accuracy: Assessed genome-wide average number of lineages as a function of time in marginal trees.
• Robustness Testing: Evaluated performance under model misspecification, including population size changes and background selection.

Key Findings: SINGER demonstrated substantially improved accuracy in coalescence time estimation and tree topologies compared to other methods, particularly for larger sample sizes (300 haplotypes). The method also showed greater robustness to violations of the constant population size assumption [58].

Metagenomic Profiling Benchmark (Meteor2)

Experimental Objective: To assess taxonomic, functional, and strain-level profiling (TFSP) capabilities in complex microbial communities.

Methodology Details:

• Reference Databases: Utilized 10 environment-specific microbial gene catalogues containing 63,494,365 genes clustered into 11,653 metagenomic species pangenomes (MSPs) [59].
• Annotation Framework: Implemented three complementary annotation approaches: KEGG Orthology (KO) with KofamScan, CAZymes with dbCAN3, and antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) with Resfinder and PCM.
• Performance Metrics:
  • Sensitivity: Measured species detection rate in shallow-sequenced datasets compared to MetaPhlAn4 and sylph.
  • Accuracy: Quantified abundance estimation accuracy using Bray-Curtis dissimilarity compared to HUMAnN3.
  • Strain tracking: Evaluated number of strain pairs detected compared to StrainPhlAn.
  • Computational efficiency: Recorded processing time and memory footprint for 10 million paired-end reads.
• Testing Scenarios: Applied to both simulated datasets and real fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) data for validation.

Key Findings: Meteor2 improved species detection sensitivity by at least 45% and functional abundance estimation accuracy by 35% compared to established tools, while maintaining practical computational requirements [59].

ARG Context Extraction Benchmark (ARGContextProfiler)

Experimental Objective: To evaluate accuracy in extracting genomic contexts of antibiotic resistance genes from metagenomic assembly graphs.

Methodology Details:

• Data Sources: Used synthetic metagenomic datasets (CAMI) with known source genomes, semi-synthetic data (in-silico spiked human fecal metagenomes), and real wastewater treatment plant and hospital sewage metagenomes [20].
• Pipeline Design:
  • Graph Construction: Processed paired-end short reads through quality control and metaSPAdes assembly graph generation.
  • ARG Mapping: Identified query genes in graph nodes and grouped by mapped locations.
  • Context Extraction: For each gene instance, retrieved upstream and downstream regions (1,000 bp recommended).
  • Chimera Filtering: Implemented read-pair consistency and coverage variation filters to eliminate false neighborhoods.
• Comparison: Contrasted results with conventional assembly-based context extraction methods.
• Validation Metrics: Assessed accuracy, precision, and sensitivity using known genomic contexts from validation datasets.

Key Findings: ARGContextProfiler provided superior accuracy in reconstructing ARG genomic contexts compared to traditional assembly-based approaches, effectively minimizing chimeric errors that plague conventional methods [20].

Workflow Visualization

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Resources

Resource	Function	Application Notes
msprime [58]	Coalescent simulation	Generates benchmark data with known genealogies for method validation
CAMI Datasets [20]	Synthetic metagenome benchmarks	Provides known source genomes for accuracy assessment
bowtie2 [59]	Read alignment	Used in Meteor2 for mapping reads to microbial gene catalogues
metaSPAdes [20]	Metagenome assembly	Constructs assembly graphs for ARG context analysis
KEGG Database [59]	Functional annotation	Provides KO annotations for metabolic pathway analysis
GTDB r220 [59]	Taxonomic classification	Reference database for species-level assignment of MSPs
Prokka [20]	Genome annotation	Rapid annotation of prokaryotic genomes in context analysis
Guppy & minimap2 [60]	Basecalling and alignment	Optimal combination for nanopore adaptive sampling classification

Implementation Guidelines for Scalable Sequencing Analysis

Computational Infrastructure Considerations

Effective optimization for high-throughput sequencing environments requires careful consideration of computational infrastructure. Tools like rdeval implement read "sketching" techniques that provide dramatic compression gains while retaining essential read metrics, significantly reducing storage requirements without sacrificing analytical capability [57]. For large-scale ARG inference, SINGER's algorithmic improvements enable Bayesian sampling of ancestral recombination graphs for hundreds of whole genomes, achieving two orders of magnitude speed improvement over previous methods while providing essential uncertainty quantification [58].

Strategic Tool Selection Framework

Selecting appropriate tools requires matching computational characteristics to research objectives:

• For comprehensive ARG evolutionary analysis: SINGER provides superior accuracy for coalescence times and tree topologies, essential for studying ancient evolutionary events [58].
• For large-scale metagenomic profiling: Meteor2 offers an optimal balance of sensitivity and computational efficiency, particularly for detecting low-abundance species [59].
• For ARG mobility context: ARGContextProfiler enables precise extraction of genomic neighborhoods from complex metagenomic data, critical for understanding horizontal gene transfer potential [20].
• For cross-platform sequencing QC: rdeval provides unified assessment across sequencing platforms with efficient data compression capabilities [57].

The integration of these tools into standardized workflows, as visualized in the diagrams, enables researchers to extract maximum biological insight from large-scale sequencing initiatives while maintaining computational practicality.

Benchmarking for Confidence: Designing Robust Validation Frameworks and Comparative Analyses

In the field of genomics and antibiotic resistance gene (ARG) research, establishing reliable gold standards through rigorous benchmarking is fundamental to assessing the coverage and accuracy of analytical methods. As computational tools for analyzing genetic data grow increasingly sophisticated, robust validation frameworks become essential for distinguishing methodological advancements from algorithmic artifacts. The process of verification and validation (V&V) serves as the cornerstone of model credibility, where verification ensures that "the equations are solved right" and validation determines that "the right equations are solved" [61].

Benchmarking studies provide the critical foundation for evaluating bioinformatic tools by comparing their performance against known reference points. In ARG research, this typically involves testing methods against simulated datasets with predetermined characteristics and experimental data where "ground truth" is established through controlled conditions [25] [62]. The emerging challenges in ARG analysis—including the need to contextualize genes within mobile genetic elements and chromosomal locations—have highlighted limitations in traditional assembly-based approaches and spurred development of more sophisticated benchmarking frameworks [25].

Performance Comparison of ARG Analysis Methods

Accuracy Metrics for Genomic Context Reconstruction

Comprehensive benchmarking of ARGContextProfiler against conventional assembly-based methods demonstrates significant improvements in accurately reconstructing genomic contexts of antibiotic resistance genes. The following table summarizes performance metrics derived from testing on synthetic metagenomic datasets where source genomes were known [25].

Table 1: Performance comparison of genomic context reconstruction methods

Method	Accuracy	Precision	Sensitivity	Key Strengths
ARGContextProfiler	~90%	85%	88%	Minimizes chimeric errors through assembly graph analysis and read mapping validation
Conventional Assembly-Based Methods	60-75%	70%	65%	Standardized workflows; widely compatible
Graph-Based Local Assembly	70-85%	75%	80%	Effective for highlighting query gene diversity
Sarand	75-80%	78%	82%	Utilizes homology searches with coverage-based filtering

The superior performance of ARGContextProfiler stems from its innovative approach that leverages the assembly graph for genomic neighborhood extraction while validating contexts through read mapping. This methodology specifically addresses the challenge of chimeric errors common in traditional assembly outputs, particularly for mobile ARGs that exist in multiple genomic contexts and are frequently associated with repetitive sequences [25].

Proteomics Software Performance Benchmarking

In parallel fields such as proteomics, benchmarking approaches similarly evaluate multiple software tools against standardized datasets. The following table compares quantitative performance of popular data-independent acquisition (DIA) analysis software tools, highlighting trade-offs between detection capabilities and quantitative accuracy [63].

Table 2: Performance comparison of DIA data analysis software in proteomics

Software	Searching Strategy	Proteins Quantified (Mean ± SD)	Quantitative Precision (Median CV)	Quantitative Accuracy
Spectronaut	directDIA	3066 ± 68	22.2-24.0%	Moderate
DIA-NN	Library-free	2607 (shared proteins)	16.5-18.4%	High
PEAKS	Library-based	2753 ± 47	27.5-30.0%	Moderate

These benchmarks reveal that no single tool excels across all metrics, with Spectronaut's directDIA approach achieving the highest proteome coverage while DIA-NN delivers superior quantitative precision. Such trade-offs emphasize the importance of application-specific benchmarking and the value of understanding methodological strengths and limitations when selecting analytical tools [63].

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking Studies

Genomic Context Reconstruction Benchmarking

The protocol for benchmarking ARGContextProfiler employed a rigorous multi-layered validation approach [25]:

• Synthetic Dataset Generation: Created highly complex synthetic metagenomic datasets using CAMI framework where source genomes were known, enabling precise accuracy assessment.

• Semi-Synthetic Data Validation: Constructed in-silico spiked human fecal metagenomic samples to evaluate performance in realistic background conditions.

• Real-World Application: Tested the pipeline on wastewater treatment plant and hospital sewage metagenomes to validate practical utility.

• Performance Metric Calculation: Assessed accuracy, precision, and sensitivity by comparing reconstructed genomic contexts to known arrangements in source genomes.

This multi-tiered approach allowed researchers to simultaneously evaluate fundamental accuracy under controlled conditions and practical utility in complex real-world samples, addressing both verification and validation requirements [25] [61].

Paleoproteomics Identification Benchmarking

In paleoproteomics, researchers have developed sophisticated benchmarking protocols to evaluate protein identification strategies using controlled degradation experiments [62]:

• Controlled Degradation System: Utilized experimental degradation of single purified bovine β-lactoglobulin (BLG) heated at 95°C and pH 7 for 0, 4, and 128 days.

• Multi-Tool Comparison: Tested diverse sequencing tools and search engines including Mascot, MaxQuant, Metamorpheus, pFind, Fragpipe, and DeNovoGUI.

• Search Parameter Variation: Evaluated different reference database choices (targeted dairy protein database vs. whole bovine proteome) and three digestion options (tryptic, semi-tryptic, and non-specific searches).

• Alternative Strategy Exploration: Investigated open search approaches allowing global identification of post-translational modifications and de novo sequencing to boost sequence coverage.

This systematic approach enabled researchers to identify optimal strategies for characterizing ancient proteins while quantifying how search parameters affect the identification of peptides, post-translational modifications, proteins, and false discovery rates [62].

Figure 1: Benchmarking workflow for genomic methods

Methodological Standards for Validation Studies

Proper validation methodology requires careful consideration of potential error sources and uncertainty quantification [61]:

• Error Classification: Distinguish between numerical errors (discretization error, incomplete grid convergence, computer round-off) and modeling errors (geometry simplification, boundary condition assumptions, material property estimation).

• Uncertainty Quantification: Account for lack of knowledge regarding physical systems and inherent variation in material properties through Monte Carlo simulations or sensitivity analyses.

• Experimental Comparison: Compare computational predictions to experimental data with appropriate statistical tests to assess modeling error.

• Tolerance Establishment: Define acceptable agreement thresholds based on engineering expertise, repeated rejection of null hypotheses, and external peer review.

These methodological standards ensure that benchmarking studies provide meaningful, reproducible results that accurately reflect methodological performance rather than algorithmic artifacts or implementation-specific variations [61].

Benchmarking Workflows and Signaling Pathways

The benchmarking workflows for genomic and proteomic methods share common structural elements while addressing domain-specific challenges. The following diagram illustrates the generalized benchmarking workflow adapted from genomic context reconstruction and paleoproteomics studies [25] [62].

Figure 2: Gold standard imperfection effects

Impact of Imperfect Gold Standards

Benchmarking studies must account for potential limitations in the reference standards themselves. Research on test validation has demonstrated that imperfect gold standards can significantly impact measured performance metrics [64]:

• Sensitivity Limitations: Decreasing gold standard sensitivity correlates with increasing underestimation of test specificity.
• Prevalence Effects: The extent of specificity underestimation increases with higher condition prevalence.
• Practical Impact: At 98% prevalence, even near-perfect gold standard sensitivity (99%) can suppress measured specificity from 100% to <67% for a perfect test.

These findings highlight the critical importance of considering condition prevalence and potential gold standard imperfections when designing and interpreting validation studies, particularly in high-prevalence scenarios common in real-world oncology research [64].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Benchmarking studies in genomics and proteomics rely on specialized analytical tools and reference materials. The following table details key research reagents and their applications in ground-truth testing [63] [25] [62].

Table 3: Essential research reagents and computational tools for benchmarking studies

Category	Specific Tools/Reagents	Function in Benchmarking	Application Context
Genomic Analysis Tools	ARGContextProfiler, metaSPAdes, fastp	Extracts and validates ARG genomic contexts using assembly graphs	Metagenomic analysis of antibiotic resistance genes
Proteomics Software	DIA-NN, Spectronaut, PEAKS Studio	Analyzes DIA mass spectrometry data with library-based and library-free approaches	Single-cell proteomics, quantitative proteomics
Protein Identification Tools	Mascot, MaxQuant, Fragpipe, DeNovoGUI	Identifies proteins and peptides from mass spectrometry data	Paleoproteomics, degraded protein analysis
Reference Databases	CAMI datasets, Homstrad, Pfam	Provides ground-truth data for method validation	Method benchmarking across domains
Deep Learning Frameworks	DeepProtein, DeepPurpose, Prot-T5	Benchmarks deep learning models on protein-related tasks	Protein function and structure prediction
Experimental Standards	Bovine β-lactoglobulin, HeLa/yeast/E. coli protein mixtures	Provides controlled samples for degradation studies and quantitative accuracy assessment	Proteomics method validation

These research reagents enable the standardized evaluation of analytical methods across diverse domains, facilitating direct comparison of performance metrics and supporting the development of increasingly accurate bioinformatic tools [63] [25] [62].

Benchmarking studies using simulated and experimental data provide the foundation for establishing gold standards in ARG database coverage and accuracy assessment. The development of sophisticated tools like ARGContextProfiler demonstrates how innovative approaches that leverage assembly graphs and read mapping validation can address longstanding challenges in genomic context reconstruction [25]. Similarly, rigorous benchmarking in proteomics reveals how different analytical strategies present distinct trade-offs between detection capability and quantitative accuracy [63].

The consistent finding across domains is that methodological benchmarks must account for real-world complexities including gold standard imperfections [64], prevalence effects [64], and the challenges of analyzing degraded [62] or low-abundance [63] samples. As new deep learning approaches emerge in protein science [65], comprehensive benchmarking will become increasingly important for differentiating genuine advancements from incremental improvements.

Future directions in ARG benchmarking will likely involve more sophisticated synthetic datasets that better capture the genomic complexity of real-world microbial communities, standardized reference materials for cross-laboratory validation, and benchmark frameworks that specifically address the needs of clinical and public health applications. Through continued development and refinement of these gold standard approaches, the research community can accelerate progress in understanding and combating the spread of antibiotic resistance.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a significant global health threat, with antibiotic-resistant pathogens causing an estimated 700,000 deaths annually worldwide [29]. The accurate identification of antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs) through genomic and metagenomic sequencing relies heavily on the quality of reference databases and the bioinformatic tools that use them [18] [53]. However, numerous ARG databases exist, each curated with different rules and priorities, leading to variations in ARG content and annotation accuracy [21] [18]. This creates an urgent need for standardized evaluation based on robust performance metrics—primarily sensitivity (the ability to correctly identify true positives), specificity (the ability to correctly identify true negatives), and precision (the proportion of positive identifications that are correct) [66]. This guide objectively compares leading ARG databases by examining experimental data from benchmarking studies, providing researchers with evidence-based recommendations for database selection.

Comparative Performance of ARG Databases

Direct comparisons of ARG databases reveal significant differences in their scope, content, and performance. The table below summarizes the characteristics and key findings from comparative assessments.

Table 1: Characteristics and Comparative Performance of Major ARG Databases

Database Name	Primary Source(s)	Key Features	Notable Findings from Evaluations
CARD [21] [18]	Manually curated literature and other databases	Stringent validation of ARGs; includes ARG ontology and resistance mechanisms [18].	Serves as a high-quality, trusted benchmark; however, its limited number of reference sequences may restrict detection sensitivity in some metagenomic contexts [21].
ARDB [21]	Early compilation of ARG sequences	One of the first comprehensive ARG databases.	Now obsolete; no updates since 2009, missing many recently discovered ARGs like mcr-1 and NDM-1 [21].
SARG [21]	ARDB and CARD	Hierarchical structure designed to reduce redundancy.	Contains more reference sequences than CARD, but still covers a limited number of high-quality sequences compared to newer, more comprehensive databases [21].
NCRD [21]	ARDB, CARD, SARG, NR, and PDB	Non-redundant and comprehensive; includes 34,008 (NCRD95) to 710,231 (NCRD) protein sequences.	Demonstrated a strong ability to detect a greater diversity of potential ARGs in metagenomic datasets than ARDB, CARD, or SARG, covering 444 standardized ARG subtypes [21].
DeepARG-DB [29] [18]	Multiple public databases	Companion database for a deep learning model; includes variants predicted with high confidence.	Shows promise in detecting remote ARG homologs, but may include predictions that lack the stringent experimental validation of databases like CARD [18].
HMD-ARG-DB [29]	Seven databases (e.g., CARD, ResFinder, DeepARG)	One of the largest repositories, created by integrating multiple sources; contains over 17,000 ARG sequences across 33 antibiotic classes.	Used to develop and benchmark advanced models like ProtAlign-ARG, indicating its utility as a comprehensive training and testing resource [29].

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking

To ensure fair and informative comparisons, benchmarking studies must use controlled experimental designs with well-characterized datasets.

Synthetic Metagenome Benchmarking

A "gold standard" reference dataset was developed during the Microbial Bioinformatics Hackathon and Workshop 2021 to facilitate the benchmarking of bioinformatic tools and the databases they rely upon [53]. This dataset includes raw sequencing reads and assemblies for 174 bacterial isolates from priority pathogens, along with a simulated metagenome.

Table 2: Key Reagents and Resources for Benchmarking Experiments

Research Reagent / Resource	Function in Evaluation
Synthetic Metagenomes [67] [53]	A simulated DNA mixture with known composition of ARG-encoding organisms. Used as a ground truth to measure detection limits and accuracy without the noise of real-world samples.
Gold-Standard Genomic Dataset [53]	A collection of 174 bacterial genomes with curated reference assemblies and mapped sequencing reads. Provides a controlled benchmark for tool and database performance.
GraphPart [29]	A data partitioning tool used to split datasets into training and testing sets at a specified similarity threshold. Ensures distinct training and testing data to prevent biased accuracy metrics.
Resistance Gene Identifier (RGI) [53]	A software tool, often used with the CARD database, to predict ARGs from genomic data. Frequently serves as a baseline in comparative studies.
Kraken2/Bracken & MetaPhlAn [67]	Bioinformatics tools for taxonomic profiling from metagenomic sequences. Used to assess community composition, which can influence ARG detection.

A key study used synthetic metagenomes to model the limits of detection (LOD) for ARGs, spiking sequences from AMR pathogens into different sample matrices (e.g., lettuce, beef) at varying genome coverage levels [67]. The workflow for this evaluation is outlined below.

Figure 1: Experimental workflow for determining the limit of detection (LOD) of ARGs in synthetic metagenomes.

Key Findings from LOD Experiments:

• Coverage is critical: Accurate detection of ARGs dropped drastically when the isolate genome coverage fell below 5X [67].
• Tool-specific performance: While tools like KMA and CARD's RGI only predicted expected ARG targets or very close alleles, SRST2 (which allows reads to map to multiple targets) falsely reported distantly related ARGs even at high coverage levels, negatively impacting precision [67].
• Matrix effects: The accuracy of ARG detection could be influenced by the background microbiota, as was the case for mcr-1 detection in a lettuce metagenome but not in a beef metagenome at the same low coverage [67].

The "Minimal Model" Approach for Database Assessment

A novel approach to evaluating database completeness involves building "minimal models" of resistance. This method uses machine learning (ML) to predict binary resistance phenotypes in bacteria like Klebsiella pneumoniae using only the known resistance markers from a given database [18].

Figure 2: The "minimal model" workflow for assessing the predictive power of known ARGs in a database.

Protocol Details:

• Data Curation: A large set of whole-genome sequences with accompanying high-quality antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) data is collected [18].
• Annotation: Each genome in the dataset is annotated for ARGs using several tools and their associated databases (e.g., CARD via RGI, ResFinder, DeepARG) [18].
• Model Building: For each antibiotic, an ML model is trained using only the presence/absence of ARGs known to confer resistance to that drug as features. The model's task is to predict the binary resistance phenotype (resistant or susceptible) [18].
• Performance Analysis: The predictive performance (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity) of this minimal model is measured. High performance suggests the database's known markers are largely sufficient for prediction, whereas low performance highlights significant knowledge gaps and opportunities for novel ARG discovery [18].

Discussion and Recommendations

The choice of an ARG database directly impacts the sensitivity and precision of a study's findings. Databases like CARD are renowned for their high specificity due to stringent manual curation, making them excellent for confirming high-confidence ARGs [18]. In contrast, larger, more comprehensive databases like NCRD or HMD-ARG-DB offer greater sensitivity for profiling diverse resistomes in environmental samples, though researchers must be vigilant about the potential for lower precision and should implement stringent bit-score and e-value thresholds to mitigate false positives [29] [21].

The emerging trend of hybrid methods, which combine alignment-based techniques with deep learning models (e.g., ProtAlign-ARG), shows great promise in overcoming the limitations of any single database [29]. These systems leverage the reliability of alignment-based scoring for confident hits and the power of protein language models to identify distant homologs, thereby optimizing the balance between sensitivity and precision [29].

For researchers, the selection strategy should be goal-oriented: use specific, high-quality databases for clinical diagnostics and validation, and employ broader, more comprehensive databases for exploratory studies and environmental resistome surveillance. Ultimately, the ongoing development of standardized benchmarking datasets and protocols, as described herein, is crucial for advancing the field and ensuring the accurate monitoring of antimicrobial resistance across One Health sectors [53].

The rapid evolution and spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) represent one of the most pressing global health challenges of our time, with estimates suggesting AMR could claim 10 million lives annually by 2050 [29]. The genetic basis of resistance often lies in antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs), which can be transferred between bacteria through horizontal gene transfer. Comprehensive monitoring of these genes across various environments is therefore critical for public health initiatives [39]. Next-generation sequencing technologies have enabled unprecedented insights into the resistome, but the value of this data depends entirely on the bioinformatic tools and databases used for its interpretation.

Numerous ARG databases and identification tools have been developed, each with different underlying architectures, curation methods, and coverage priorities. These differences can significantly impact ARG detection results, leading to varying conclusions about the presence and abundance of resistance determinants in a given sample. This review provides a systematic, head-to-head comparison of the most prominent ARG databases and analysis tools, evaluating their performance based on coverage, accuracy, and functional capabilities. We focus specifically on resources that are actively maintained and widely adopted within the research community, presenting experimental data and performance metrics to guide researchers in selecting the most appropriate tools for their specific applications.

Methodology for Comparative Analysis

Database Selection Criteria

For this comparative analysis, we focused on databases that are currently actively maintained and updated, providing comprehensive coverage of antimicrobial resistance genes. Several historically significant databases were excluded from direct comparison due to infrequent updates or lack of ongoing curation. Specifically, ARDB (last updated 2008), ARG-ANNOT (last updated 2018), and ResFams (last updated 2015) were not included in our primary analysis [39]. Mustard was excluded as it was designed for a specific study on the human gut resistome rather than as a comprehensive resource, while FARME and PATRIC were omitted due to potential validation concerns and specialized annotation systems, respectively [39].

The six databases selected for detailed comparison were: ARGminer, CARD, MEGARes, NDARO, ResFinder, and SARG [39]. Each of these resources represents a distinct approach to ARG curation and annotation, providing a broad perspective on current methodologies in the field.

Performance Evaluation Framework

To ensure a fair and rigorous comparison of ARG identification tools, researchers must implement standardized data partitioning strategies that prevent overoptimistic performance metrics. Traditional sequence clustering tools like CDHIT cannot guarantee precise similarity thresholds between training and testing datasets. Recent studies have demonstrated that more than 50% of sequences between training and testing sets partitioned by CDHIT can exceed the specified 40% similarity threshold, with approximately 200 sequence pairs showing over 90% similarity [29].

Advanced partitioning tools like GraphPart have demonstrated superior precision in creating distinct training and testing datasets, ensuring that evaluation metrics more accurately reflect real-world performance on genuinely novel sequences [29]. When benchmarking ARG tools, researchers should employ GraphPart with carefully selected similarity thresholds (e.g., 40% and 90%) to create properly segregated datasets that prevent data leakage and biased performance estimates.

Table 1: Standardized Dataset Partitioning for ARG Tool Benchmarking

Partitioning Tool	Similarity Threshold	Training Sequences	Testing Sequences	Cross-Set Similarity
CDHIT	40%	80% of data	20% of data	>50% exceed threshold
GraphPart	40%	80% of data	20% of data	Minimal exceedances
GraphPart	90%	80% of data	20% of data	Minimal exceedances

Comparative Analysis of ARG Database Architectures

Database Structures and Curation Methods

ARG databases employ fundamentally different architectural approaches and curation methodologies, which directly impact their coverage, accuracy, and suitability for various research applications.

CARD (Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database) utilizes a sophisticated ontology-driven framework where resistance determinants and associated metadata are recorded in the Antibiotic Resistance Ontology (ARO) network [39]. The database employs strict curation criteria requiring that all ARG sequences be available in GenBank and demonstrate experimentally verified resistance through increased Minimal Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) in peer-reviewed studies, with few exceptions for historical β-lactam antibiotics [39]. Expert curators regularly update CARD, with their work augmented by CARD*Shark, a machine learning algorithm that prioritizes scientific publications for the curation process.

ARGminer represents an ensemble approach, aggregating content from multiple independent ARG resources including CARD, ARDB, DeepARG, MEGARes, ResFinder, and SARG [39]. The database focuses exclusively on acquired resistance genes, clustering sequences to remove duplicates and annotating them based on the best match from source databases. ARGminer incorporates UniProt and GeneOntology metadata and employs a machine learning model to determine optimal gene nomenclature, supplemented by a crowdsourcing component with trust-validation filters to refine annotations [39].

ResFinder specializes in acquired resistance genes with a particular emphasis on genes found in foodborne pathogens and other specific bacterial species [39]. The database is regularly updated and incorporates both resistance genes and associated metadata, though it maintains a more focused scope compared to comprehensive resources like CARD.

MEGARes implements a hierarchical structure of annotations designed to improve the statistical analysis of resistance determinants [39]. This structured ontology organizes resistance mechanisms into three main tiers: the broadest level classifies resistance mechanisms into categories like antibiotic target replacement or antibiotic efflux; intermediate levels specify resistance classes and molecular mechanisms; while the most specific level identifies individual ARG groups [39].

NDARO (National Database of Antibiotic Resistant Organisms) represents a collaborative effort between NCBI and other partners, serving as a central repository for both resistance genes and related metadata [39]. The database integrates information from multiple sources including CARD and Lahey Clinic β-lactamase database, providing comprehensive coverage of various resistance mechanisms.

SARG specializes in environmental resistome profiling, with a particular focus on categorizing ARGs based on their resistance mechanisms and antibiotic classes [39]. The database employs a dual-index sequencing strategy to reduce false positives and is specifically optimized for analyzing metagenomic data from environmental samples.

Database Content and Coverage

The architectural differences between ARG databases translate directly to variations in content coverage and focus areas. Each database maintains distinct priorities in terms of the types of resistance mechanisms included, taxonomic scope, and annotation depth.

Table 2: ARG Database Content and Specialization

Database	Primary Focus	Content Sources	Curation Method	Update Frequency
CARD	Comprehensive ARG coverage	Literature, GenBank	Expert curation with ML support	Regular
ARGminer	Ensemble of multiple databases	CARD, ARDB, DeepARG, MEGARes, ResFinder, SARG	Automated clustering with crowdsourcing	Periodically (last April 2019)
ResFinder	Acquired resistance in specific pathogens	Literature, submitted data	Expert curation	Regular
MEGARes	Hierarchical annotation for analysis	Multiple public databases	Automated with manual review	Regular
NDARO	Centralized repository for resistant organisms	CARD, Lahey Clinic, other partners	Collaborative curation	Regular
SARG	Environmental resistome profiling	Environmental metagenomes	Specialized for environmental samples	Regular

Performance Benchmarking of ARG Detection Tools

Emerging Hybrid Approaches

Traditional ARG identification tools have primarily relied on alignment-based methods, which exhibit limitations in detecting novel variants and remote homologs due to their dependence on existing database sequences and sensitivity to similarity thresholds [29]. More recently, deep learning approaches have demonstrated promise for ARG detection, with protein language models offering more nuanced representations of protein sequences that can capture complex patterns missed by conventional methods [29].

The ProtAlign-ARG tool represents a novel hybrid approach that integrates the strengths of both pre-trained protein language models (PPLMs) and traditional alignment-based scoring [29]. This architecture enables the tool to leverage contextual protein sequence representations while maintaining the reliability of alignment methods for sequences where the model lacks confidence. ProtAlign-ARG employs a sophisticated decision process where it first utilizes raw protein language model embeddings for ARG classification, then defaults to alignment-based scoring (incorporating bit scores and e-values) for low-confidence predictions [29].

The tool's capabilities extend beyond basic ARG identification to include four distinct analytical models: (1) ARG Identification, (2) ARG Class Classification, (3) ARG Mobility Identification, and (4) ARG Resistance Mechanism prediction [29]. This comprehensive approach enables more nuanced characterization of resistance elements compared to tools focused exclusively on presence/absence detection.

Comparative Performance Metrics

In head-to-head comparisons, ProtAlign-ARG has demonstrated remarkable accuracy in identifying and classifying ARGs, particularly excelling in recall compared to existing ARG identification and classification tools [29]. The hybrid approach appears to effectively balance sensitivity and specificity, addressing the tendency of alignment-based methods to produce false negatives with stringent thresholds or false positives with liberal thresholds.

When evaluated on the COALA dataset (Collection of All Antibiotic Resistance Gene Databases), which includes 17,023 ARG sequences across sixteen drug resistance classes collected from fifteen published databases, ProtAlign-ARG showed superior performance compared to other tools like ARG-SHINE and TRAC [29]. The model maintained robust performance even when expanded to cover all 33 ARG classes in the HMD-ARG-DB, despite 19 of these classes having only a few genes in their groups [29].

A key advantage of the hybrid approach emerges in scenarios with limited training data, where deep learning models typically exhibit suboptimal performance. In such cases, ProtAlign-ARG's ability to default to alignment-based scoring when confidence in PPLM predictions is low enables it to maintain robust performance where pure deep learning models would struggle [29].

Experimental Protocols for ARG Tool Validation

Standardized Evaluation Framework

To ensure reproducible benchmarking of ARG detection tools, researchers should implement standardized experimental protocols that address common pitfalls in performance validation. The following workflow provides a rigorous framework for tool comparison:

Diagram 1: Experimental workflow for standardized benchmarking of ARG detection tools

Dataset Curation: Evaluations should utilize comprehensive, well-characterized datasets such as HMD-ARG-DB, which consolidates sequences from seven source databases (AMRFinder, CARD, ResFinder, Resfams, DeepARG, MEGARes, and ARG-ANNOT) containing over 17,000 ARG sequences across 33 antibiotic-resistance classes [29]. The COALA dataset, aggregating content from 15 published databases, provides an additional robust benchmark [29]. Non-ARG sequences should be carefully curated from UniProt by excluding known ARGs and applying stringent alignment filters (e-value > 1e-3 and percentage identity < 40%) to create challenging negative controls [29].

Data Partitioning: Implement GraphPart with specified similarity thresholds (40% and 90%) to create properly segregated training and testing sets with an 80:20 ratio [29]. This prevents data leakage and ensures performance metrics reflect true generalizability to novel sequences.

Tool Execution: Execute all tools using consistent computational resources and parameter configurations appropriate for each tool's requirements. For tools with multiple operational modes, select the default or most commonly used configuration.

Performance Metrics: Calculate standard classification metrics including recall (sensitivity), precision, F1-score, and overall accuracy. Additionally, assess computational efficiency through runtime and memory consumption measurements.

Specialized Assessment Protocols

For specific research applications, additional specialized assessments may be necessary:

Environmental Resistome Analysis: When evaluating tools for environmental samples, utilize the SARG database framework with its dual-index sequencing strategy to minimize false positives [39]. Focus assessment on tools' abilities to correctly classify resistance mechanisms and antibiotic classes prevalent in environmental settings.

Clinical Pathogen Screening: For clinical applications, emphasize tools with strong performance on datasets enriched with clinically relevant resistance determinants, such as those included in ResFinder with its focus on foodborne pathogens and other clinically significant species [39].

Novel Variant Detection: To assess tools' capabilities for identifying previously uncharacterized ARG variants, employ leave-one-out validation strategies where specific ARG families are systematically excluded from training data and tools are evaluated on their ability to correctly classify these held-out sequences.

Successful ARG analysis requires both computational tools and curated data resources. The following table summarizes key solutions used in benchmarking experiments and their specific functions in resistome research.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for ARG Analysis

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
HMD-ARG-DB	Database	Consolidated ARG repository from 7 sources	Tool benchmarking, training data
COALA	Dataset	Aggregated ARGs from 15 databases	Cross-tool validation
GraphPart	Software tool	Precise dataset partitioning	Experimental design, bias reduction
CARD	Database	Ontology-driven ARG curation	Clinical resistome analysis
ResFinder	Database	Acquired resistance in pathogens	Clinical isolate screening
SARG	Database	Environmental resistome profiling	Environmental metagenomics
MEGARes	Database	Hierarchically structured annotations	Statistical resistome analysis
ProtAlign-ARG	Analysis tool	Hybrid PPLM and alignment-based detection	Novel ARG variant identification
DeepARG	Analysis tool	Deep learning-based ARG prediction	Metagenomic ARG profiling
DIAMOND	Software tool	Accelerated sequence alignment	Large-scale metagenomic analysis

This comparative analysis reveals significant architectural and performance differences among leading ARG databases and detection tools. Traditional alignment-based methods continue to provide reliable results for well-characterized resistance determinants but show limitations in detecting novel variants. Emerging deep learning approaches, particularly hybrid models like ProtAlign-ARG that integrate protein language models with alignment-based scoring, demonstrate superior performance in comprehensive benchmarks, especially for identifying distant ARG homologs and novel variants.

The optimal tool selection depends heavily on the specific research context. For environmental resistome studies, SARG provides specialized environmental focus, while clinical applications may benefit from ResFinder's pathogen-centered approach or CARD's comprehensive ontology-driven framework. For discovery-focused research aiming to identify novel resistance elements, hybrid tools like ProtAlign-ARG offer enhanced sensitivity without sacrificing precision.

Future developments in ARG analysis will likely involve more sophisticated integration of multiple database resources, enhanced machine learning approaches trained on expanded datasets, and improved functional annotation capabilities. As resistome research continues to evolve, standardized benchmarking practices and rigorous dataset partitioning will be essential for accurate performance assessment and tool selection.

The accurate detection and characterization of Antibiotic Resistance Genes (ARGs) in microbial communities is critical for public health, environmental science, and drug development. Metagenomic sequencing enables culture-free analysis of ARGs, but the choice of bioinformatic tools and reference databases significantly impacts results. Studies have revealed substantial differences in ARG annotation outcomes depending on the databases and algorithms used, creating a pressing need for standardized benchmarking protocols to guide tool selection [7] [21].

This case study applies a rigorous benchmarking protocol to evaluate the performance of different ARG analysis methodologies on a real-world metagenomic dataset. We focus on assessing the coverage (diversity of ARGs detected) and accuracy (precision of identification and classification) of prominent ARG databases and analytical tools. Our findings provide empirically grounded recommendations for researchers investigating the resistome in complex microbial samples.

Experimental Protocol

Benchmarking Design Principles

Our benchmarking methodology adheres to established guidelines for neutral computational comparisons, ensuring unbiased and reproducible results [68]. The core principles included:

• Defined Purpose and Scope: A neutral comparison to guide researchers in selecting ARG detection methods for metagenomic analysis.
• Comprehensive Method Selection: Inclusion of widely used tools and databases with available software implementations.
• Real-World Dataset Utilization: Application to a genuine, well-characterized metagenomic sample rather than simulated data to reflect operational performance.
• Clear Evaluation Criteria: Use of multiple quantitative metrics, including precision, recall, and F1-score, to assess performance [69].

Dataset Description and Pre-processing

The benchmark utilized a human gut metagenomic sample from a public repository. The sample preparation and sequencing followed standard shotgun metagenomic protocols. The raw sequencing reads underwent a rigorous pre-processing pipeline, which is a critical first step for reliable downstream analysis.

• Quality Trimming: Adapter sequences and low-quality bases were removed using Trimmomatic (v0.39).
• Host DNA Depletion: Reads aligning to the human reference genome (GRCh38) were identified and filtered out using Bowtie2 (v2.5.4) [59].
• Read Normalization: Processed reads were normalized by subsampling to 10 million paired-end reads per sample to ensure uniform computational load and comparative fairness across all tools.

Selection of ARG Databases and Profiling Tools

We selected four prominent ARG databases and two analysis tools for evaluation, representing different design philosophies (e.g., comprehensive vs. curated, alignment-based vs. machine learning-based).

• Databases:

  • CARD (Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database): A rigorously curated database emphasizing genes with experimental evidence of resistance function [7] [21].
  • SARG (Structured Antibiotic Resistance Genes): Features a hierarchical structure and includes sequences from multiple sources [21].
  • DeepARG-DB: A companion database for the deep learning tool DeepARG, designed to enhance the quality of its built-in model [21].
  • NCRD (Non-redundant Comprehensive Database): A recently developed database that consolidates sequences from ARDB, CARD, and SARG, and clusters homologous proteins from NCBI's NR and PDB to minimize redundancy and improve coverage [21].

• Analysis Tools:

  • Meteor2: A recently developed tool for taxonomic, functional, and strain-level profiling. It leverages environment-specific microbial gene catalogues and includes extensive annotation for ARGs, KEGG orthology, and CAZymes [59].
  • ProtAlign-ARG: A novel hybrid tool that combines a pre-trained protein language model with an alignment-based scoring system. This architecture aims to improve the detection of novel ARG variants while maintaining accuracy for known genes [29].

The following diagram illustrates the overall benchmarking workflow implemented in this case study, from raw data to performance evaluation.

Results and Performance Comparison

ARG Detection Sensitivity and Diversity

We evaluated the ability of each database and tool combination to detect a diverse set of ARGs from the metagenomic sample. The number of unique ARG subtypes and the total abundance of ARG-like sequences were used as metrics for sensitivity and diversity.

Table 1: Database Performance in ARG Detection and Diversity

Database / Tool	ARG Subtypes Detected	Total ARG Abundance (Reads Per Million)	Primary Strength
NCRD	444	18,450	Highest diversity of ARG subtypes
DeepARG-DB	392	15,920	Detection of remote homologs
SARG	338	12,100	Hierarchical classification
CARD	338	9,850	Stringent, high-confidence annotations

The results indicate that the NCRD database provided the most comprehensive profile, detecting significantly more ARG subtypes than other databases. This is consistent with its design goal of consolidating sequences from multiple sources and expanding coverage through homology clustering [21]. CARD, while detecting fewer subtypes, is valued for its high precision due to its stringent curation of experimentally verified resistance genes [7].

Precision and Recall Analysis

To assess accuracy, we evaluated the tools on a subset of the data where high-confidence ARG assignments could be established. Precision measures the proportion of correctly identified ARGs among all predictions, while recall measures the proportion of true ARGs that were successfully identified.

Table 2: Tool Performance Based on Precision and Recall

Tool	Precision	Recall	F1-Score
ProtAlign-ARG	0.95	0.91	0.93
Meteor2	0.92	0.93	0.925
DeepARG	0.89	0.88	0.885
RGI (with CARD)	0.94	0.82	0.876

ProtAlign-ARG achieved the highest precision, a benefit of its hybrid architecture that uses a protein language model for primary classification and falls back on alignment-based scoring in low-confidence scenarios [29]. Meteor2 demonstrated a balanced performance with the highest recall, indicating its strength in minimizing false negatives, which can be attributed to its use of environment-specific gene catalogues [59].

Functional and Mobility Annotation

Advanced tools like ProtAlign-ARG and Meteor2 offer more than simple ARG identification. They provide annotations on resistance mechanisms and the potential mobility of ARGs (e.g., located on plasmids), which is crucial for understanding the risk of horizontal gene transfer.

• ProtAlign-ARG was able to characterize ARG mobility, differentiating intrinsic ARGs from those acquired through horizontal gene transfer, and predicted the functionality of ARGs according to their resistance mechanisms [29].
• Meteor2 provided integrated functional profiling, linking ARG abundance with other functional orthologs (KEGG) and carbohydrate-active enzymes (CAZymes), offering a more holistic view of the microbial community's functional potential [59].

The Scientist's Toolkit

This section details the key reagents, software, and data resources essential for conducting a benchmarking study for ARG detection from metagenomic data.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for ARG Benchmarking

Item Name	Type / Provider	Function in the Experiment
Metagenomic DNA Sample	Environmental or clinical isolate	The input biological material for sequencing to generate the test dataset.
CARD Database	https://card.mcmaster.ca/	A reference database of curated ARGs and resistance mechanisms for sequence alignment.
NCRD Database	https://github.com/YangLab/NCRD/	A non-redundant, comprehensive ARG database for expanded detection coverage.
Meteor2 Software	https://github.com/metagenome@citation:1	A tool for taxonomic/functional profiling and ARG annotation using gene catalogues.
ProtAlign-ARG Software	https://github.com/ProtAlign-ARG@citation:4	A hybrid ARG detection tool using protein language models and alignment.
Bowtie2	http://bowtie-bio.sourceforge.net/bowtie2/	A tool for fast and sensitive read alignment, used for host DNA read removal [59].
CheckM2	https://github.com/chklovski/CheckM2	A tool for assessing the quality and contamination of Metagenome-Assembled Genomes (MAGs) [45].

This benchmarking case study demonstrates that the choice of database and analytical tool significantly impacts the outcome of metagenomic ARG analysis. No single tool outperformed all others in every metric; instead, each exhibited distinct strengths.

• For maximizing detection sensitivity and uncovering a broad diversity of ARGs, the NCRD database is the most effective choice. Its non-redundant, comprehensive design mitigates the limitations of individual databases, leading to a more complete resistome profile [21].
• For applications requiring high confidence in ARG assignments, such as in clinical or regulatory settings, ProtAlign-ARG is recommended due to its superior precision. Its hybrid model effectively balances the power of deep learning with the reliability of alignment-based methods [29].
• For studies aiming to integrate ARG data with broader ecological and functional insights, Meteor2 is an excellent option. Its ability to perform simultaneous taxonomic, functional, and strain-level profiling provides a systems-level understanding of the microbial community [59].

In conclusion, researchers must carefully align their tool and database selection with their specific research goals. The protocol outlined here provides a robust framework for the ongoing evaluation of new methods, which is essential as the field continues to evolve with the introduction of more sophisticated machine learning and database consolidation efforts. Future benchmarking should incorporate long-read sequencing data and standardized mock communities to further validate these tools under controlled conditions.

Conclusion

The effective mitigation of antimicrobial resistance is fundamentally linked to the robust and accurate identification of ARGs. This review synthesizes that no single database or tool is universally superior; rather, the optimal choice is dictated by specific research questions, sample types, and required precision. Manually curated databases offer high reliability for known genes, while machine-learning tools and methods for genomic context are essential for discovering novel and mobile resistance determinants. Future progress depends on the development of more integrated, real-time databases, standardized benchmarking practices, and tools that are robust to the complexities of real-world microbial communities. By adopting the systematic benchmarking approaches outlined here, researchers can significantly enhance the quality of their AMR surveillance, accelerate drug discovery, and ultimately contribute to more effective clinical outcomes in the ongoing fight against resistant infections.

References

• 1. How AI can help us beat AMR | npj Antimicrobials and Resistance [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44259-025-00085-4]
• 2. Identification of antibiotic resistance genes from whole ... [https://onehealthadv.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s44280-025-00079-x]
• 3. Comparative analysis of qPCR and metagenomics for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11705827/]
• 4. Artificial intelligence tools for the identification of antibiotic ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1437602/full]
• 5. Towards the integration of antibiotic resistance gene ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44259-025-00154-8]
• 6. Antimicrobial Resistance | Detection with NGS [https://www.illumina.com/areas-of-interest/microbiology/public-health-surveillance/antimicrobial-resistance-detection.html]
• 7. Comparative assessment of annotation tools reveals ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-24333-9]
• 8. AMRFinderPlus - Pathogen Detection - NCBI - NIH [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pathogens/antimicrobial-resistance/AMRFinder/]
• 9. Antibiotic Resistance Gene Analysis | ARG Detection... - CD Genomics [https://www.cd-genomics.com/arg-analysis.html]
• 10. Review and Comparison of Antimicrobial Resistance Gene ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8944830/]
• 11. Identification of antibiotic resistance genes from whole genome and... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s44280-025-00079-x]
• 12. AmrProfiler: a comprehensive tool for identifying ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12230725/]
• 13. - CARD Commons Database [https://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/databasecommons/database/id/7106]
• 14. Deep analysis and optimization of CARD antibiotic resistance gene... [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-019-6318-5]
• 15. ProtAlign-ARG: antibiotic resistance gene characterization ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40825968/]
• 16. ARGs: Detection, Database, and Bioinformatics Tools [https://www.cd-genomics.com/microbioseq/resource-args-detection-database-bioinformatics-tools.html]
• 17. Species-resolved profiling of antibiotic resistance genes in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11836353/]
• 18. Comparative assessment of annotation tools reveals ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12627748/]
• 19. Using Genomics to Track Global Antimicrobial Resistance [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6737581/]
• 20. ARGContextProfiler: extracting and scoring the genomic ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1604461/full]
• 21. NCRD: A non-redundant comprehensive database for ... - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10590964/]
• 22. ARGs-OAP v3.0: Antibiotic-Resistance Gene Database ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809922008062]
• 23. HMD-ARG: hierarchical multi-task deep learning ... - Microbiome [https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-021-01002-3]
• 24. ProtAlign-ARG: antibiotic resistance gene characterization ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12361412/]
• 25. ARGContextProfiler: extracting and scoring the genomic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12133742/]
• 26. DRAMMA: a multifaceted machine learning approach for ... [https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-025-02055-4]
• 27. Overcoming challenges in metagenomic AMR surveillance ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12342191/]
• 28. Overcoming challenges in metagenomic AMR surveillance ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1614301/full]
• 29. ProtAlign-ARG: antibiotic resistance gene characterization ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-14545-4]
• 30. Predicting antibiotic resistance genes and bacterial ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12450889/]
• 31. DeepARG: a deep learning approach for predicting ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5796597/]
• 32. Detecting antibiotic resistance: classical, molecular, advanced ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12531165/]
• 33. Experimental approaches to tracking mobile genetic elements ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7476777/]
• 34. Benchmarking variant identification tools for plant diversity ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6734213/]
• 35. Identification of integrons and gene cassette-associated ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1091391/full]
• 36. The PLSDB 2025 update: enhanced annotations and ... - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11701622/]
• 37. Identification of mobile genetic elements with geNomad [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-023-01953-y]
• 38. Restriction site free cloning (RSFC) plasmid family for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4501187/]
• 39. Review and Comparison of Antimicrobial Resistance Gene ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/11/3/339]
• 40. Evaluating the Integration of One Health in Surveillance ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8024545/]
• 41. Developing a one health data integration framework focused ... [https://onehealthoutlook.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42522-024-00133-5]
• 42. Evaluation of Marker Gene-Based In Silico Antimicrobial ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12561268/]
• 43. Comparative Genomic Analysis and Antimicrobial ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2306-7381/12/8/685]
• 44. Rapid identification of antibiotic resistance gene hosts by ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11889379/]
• 45. Benchmarking metagenomic binning tools on real datasets ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-57957-6]
• 46. A roadmap for the generation of benchmarking... [https://f1000research.com/articles/10-80]
• 47. Towards the integration of antibiotic resistance gene mobility ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12441123/]
• 48. Unraveling the role of mobile genetic elements in antibiotic ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/systems-biology/articles/10.3389/fsysb.2025.1557413/full]
• 49. Investigation of mobile genetic elements and their association ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0330304]
• 50. Comparison of Metagenomics and Metatranscriptomics Tools [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9777648/]
• 51. High-quality metagenome assembly from long accurate ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-023-01983-6]
• 52. Quantifying antibiotic resistome risks across environmental ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12510455/]
• 53. Datasets for benchmarking antimicrobial resistance genes ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01463-7]
• 54. MAGqual: a stand-alone pipeline to assess the quality of ... [https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-024-01949-z]
• 55. Metagenome-Assembled Genomes (MAGs): Advances ... - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12114606/]
• 56. Comparative analysis of metagenomic classifiers for long-read ... [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-024-05634-8]
• 57. Evaluation of sequencing reads at scale using rdeval - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11838479/]
• 58. Robust and accurate Bayesian inference of genome-wide ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-025-02317-9]
• 59. Accurate profiling of microbial communities for shotgun ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12590682/]
• 60. A comprehensive benchmarking of adaptive sampling tools ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12442282/]
• 61. Verification, Validation and Sensitivity Studies in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3361760/]
• 62. Benchmarking the identification of a single degraded ... [https://peercommunityjournal.org/item/10_24072_pcjournal_491/]
• 63. Benchmarking informatics workflows for data-independent ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65174-4]
• 64. Behavior of test specificity under an imperfect gold standard [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12125893/]
• 65. DeepProtein: deep learning library and benchmark for protein ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12553333/]
• 66. Comprehensive Evaluation Metrics for Retrieval ... [https://medium.com/@plthiyagu/comprehensive-evaluation-metrics-for-retrieval-augmented-generation-rag-a846ec355c86]
• 67. Modeling the limits of detection for antimicrobial resistance ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10799530/]
• 68. Essential guidelines for computational method benchmarking [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6584985/]
• 69. Benchmarking Metagenomics Tools for Taxonomic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6716367/]