Functional Metagenomics: From Gene Prediction to Pathway Reconstruction

Functional metagenomics moves beyond asking which microbes are present in a community to asking what those microbes are capable of doing. For bioinformaticians, researchers, and analysts working with shotgun metagenomic data, the core task is converting raw sequencing reads into reliable statements about metabolic potential, pathway completeness, and community function. This article outlines a practical pipeline for functional annotation using tools such as Prokka, eggNOG-mapper, and KEGG, with guidance on interpreting results and avoiding common pitfalls. The workflow presented here applies to assembled contigs, metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs), and unassembled reads, with explicit criteria for choosing tools based on research question and data volume.

Scope and Reader Context

This article serves students, researchers, analysts, and life-science professionals who need a defensible workflow for annotating metagenomic sequences and reconstructing functional pathways. The primary intent is to provide a checklist of annotation tools and databases with criteria for choosing among them based on research question and data volume. The content assumes familiarity with basic metagenomic concepts but does not require advanced programming skills. Each section addresses a concrete decision point in the annotation pipeline, from input preparation through pathway interpretation, with attention to quality control, reproducibility, and the limits of what functional predictions can tell you about a microbial community.

The scope covers shotgun metagenomic data, which captures the collective genomic content of a microbial community. This differs from amplicon sequencing, which targets specific marker genes. Shotgun data enables functional annotation because it samples the full gene content of the community, beyond taxonomic markers. The pipeline described here applies to both assembled and unassembled data, though the specific tools and quality considerations differ between these approaches.

At a Glance: Annotation Strategy Selection

The choice of annotation strategy depends on your research question, data volume, and available computing resources. The table below summarizes the main approaches and their appropriate use cases.

The choice between read-based and assembly-based approaches has major implications for the biological questions you can answer. Read-based methods such as FMAP perform alignment directly on sequencing reads, calculate gene family abundances, and provide statistical analysis at the level of differentially abundant genes, operons, and pathways. This approach works well for large datasets where assembly is computationally prohibitive. Assembly-based methods such as Bakta and MicrobeAnnotator provide richer annotations with database cross-references but require sufficient sequencing depth to produce quality assemblies.

Core Principles of Functional Annotation

Gene Prediction Is the Foundation

Functional annotation begins with gene prediction, the process of identifying protein-coding sequences within assembled contigs or MAGs. The quality of gene prediction directly determines the quality of all downstream functional assignments. Command-line annotation tools have gained popularity over centralized online services because of the worldwide increase in sequenced bacterial genomes. However, results from existing command-line pipelines depend heavily on taxon-specific databases or sufficiently well annotated reference genomes. This dependency creates a risk for metagenomic data, where the organisms present may have no close relatives in reference databases.

Bakta addresses this challenge with a taxon-independent approach that uses alignment-free sequence identification to accelerate the annotation of coding sequences. This method facilitates the precise assignment of public database cross-references while maintaining fast runtimes. Bakta conducts a comprehensive annotation workflow that includes the detection of small proteins and takes into account replicon metadata. The tool exports results in GFF3 and INSDC-compliant flat files, as well as comprehensive JSON files that facilitate automated downstream analysis. In benchmarks comparing Bakta to other rapid command-line annotation tools, Bakta outperformed other tools in terms of functional annotations, the assignment of functional categories, and database cross-references, while providing comparable wall-clock runtimes.

Multiple Databases Reduce Blind Spots

No single database captures all functional information. MicrobeAnnotator was designed specifically to address this limitation by combining results from several reference protein databases. The pipeline returns matching annotations together with key metadata, including interlinked identifiers of matching reference proteins from KEGG Orthology (KO), Enzyme Commission (E.C.), Gene Ontology (GO), Pfam, and InterPro. This multi-database approach reduces the risk of missing functions that are poorly represented in any single resource.

The functional annotations from MicrobeAnnotator are summarized into KEGG modules as part of a graphical heatmap output. This visualization allows users to quickly detect differences among multiple query genomes and cluster genomes based on metabolic similarity. The tool was demonstrated by annotating 100 Escherichia coli and 78 environmental Candidate Phyla Radiation (CPR) bacterial genomes, showing that the use of multiple annotation databases improves functional coverage compared to single-database approaches.

Pathway Reconstruction Requires Context

Gene presence alone does not confirm pathway operation. A pathway reconstruction is only as strong as the evidence linking gene presence to actual biochemical activity. In soil bioremediation studies, detection of functional genes cannot confirm that a contaminant is being degraded by a defined pathway. Bioavailability limitations, redox microsites, relic DNA, gene mobility, and community restructuring can decouple gene presence from reaction flux. This principle applies broadly to metagenomic functional analysis: the genetic potential encoded in a community is not the same as the activity expressed by that community.

For pathway reconstruction, you need to distinguish between pathway potential, in situ activity, and verified pathway operation. Pathway potential is what metagenomic annotation reveals: the presence of genes encoding enzymes in a pathway. In situ activity requires additional evidence such as gene expression data from metatranscriptomics. Verified pathway operation requires even stronger evidence, including stable isotope probing and targeted chemical analysis. When interpreting functional annotations, you should be explicit about which inferential level your data supports.

Practical Workflow for Functional Annotation

Step 1: Input Preparation and Quality Control

The first decision point is whether to work with reads or assembled contigs. MetaLAFFA was designed to take unfiltered shotgun metagenomic data as input and generate functional profiles, with standard raw sequence data pre-processing built into the pipeline. This end-to-end approach reduces the risk of errors introduced by manual preprocessing steps. The pipeline generates summary statistics for each step so that users can understand preprocessing and annotation quality.

For read-based analysis, quality filtering should remove adapter sequences, low-quality bases, and host contamination. Host DNA contamination is a known confounder in shallow metagenomic analysis. Library preparation methods also affect the quality of functional profiles, so these should be documented and controlled where possible.

For assembly-based analysis, the sequencing depth requirements are substantially higher. Benchmarking studies show that de novo metagenome-assembled genome reconstruction requires deep sequencing, and even MAGs deemed high quality by standard metrics can be chimeric. In one benchmark, only 54.5 to 81.8 percent of MAGs accurately represented original strains, depending on the bioinformatic approach. This finding has direct implications for functional annotation: if a MAG is chimeric, the functional annotations derived from it may combine genes from different organisms, leading to incorrect pathway reconstructions.

Step 2: Choose Your Annotation Strategy

The choice between read-based and assembly-based annotation should be guided by your research question and data volume. For large datasets where the goal is community-level functional profiling, read-based methods such as FMAP provide integrated alignment, gene family abundance calculations, and statistical analysis at three levels: differentially abundant genes, operons, and pathways. FMAP was designed to address the lack of integrated alignment tools, operon-level analysis, and the ability to process large datasets in earlier pipelines.

For smaller datasets or when MAG reconstruction is the goal, assembly-based annotation with tools such as Bakta or MicrobeAnnotator provides richer functional information. Bakta is implemented in Python 3 and runs on macOS and Linux systems. It is freely available under a GPLv3 license. MicrobeAnnotator is also implemented in Python 3 and is freely available under an open-source Artistic License 2.0.

For projects requiring flexible customization and distributed computing, MetaLAFFA offers a Snakemake pipeline that integrates with distributed computing clusters. Default pipeline settings allow new users to run the pipeline according to common practices, while a Python module-based configuration system provides advanced users with a flexible interface for customization.

Step 3: Run Functional Annotation

For assembled contigs or MAGs, the annotation step assigns functional categories to each predicted gene. The choice of annotation tool affects the accuracy, formatting, and functional identifiers reported in the results. The selected toolset impacts results interpretation and the biological answer obtained. MEDUSA was designed to address this challenge by supporting user-built dictionaries to transfer annotations to any functional identifier. The pipeline includes fastp, Bowtie2, DIAMOND, Kaiju, MEGAHIT, and a novel tool implemented in Python to transfer annotations to BLAST or DIAMOND alignment results.

When comparing MEDUSA to MEGAN 6 Community Edition, MEDUSA correctly identified more species, especially the less abundant ones, and was more suited for functional analysis using Gene Ontology identifiers. This finding highlights that the choice of annotation pipeline affects also the number of annotations but also the type of functional identifiers you can use for downstream analysis.

For read-based functional profiling, the annotation step involves aligning reads against reference protein databases and assigning functional categories based on the best matches. The hybrid approach using UBLAST and BLASTX has been evaluated for metagenomic sequence annotation of specific functional genes. This approach combines the speed of UBLAST with the sensitivity of BLASTX, providing a practical option for targeted functional gene analysis.

Step 4: Reconstruct Pathways

Pathway reconstruction involves mapping annotated genes to known biochemical pathways and assessing the completeness of each pathway in your sample. KEGG modules provide a useful framework for this analysis because they define the set of genes required for a specific metabolic function. MicrobeAnnotator summarizes functional annotations into KEGG modules as part of a graphical heatmap output, allowing users to detect differences among query genomes and cluster them based on metabolic similarity.

For community-level pathway reconstruction, the goal is to determine which pathways are encoded by the collective gene content of the community. This analysis can reveal the metabolic capabilities of the community as a whole, even when individual organisms lack complete pathways. The concept of community-level pathway reconstruction reflects the reality that biochemical and regulatory pathways in microbiomes often involve multiple organisms working together.

Step 5: Interpret and Validate Results

The final step is interpreting the functional profiles in the context of your research question. This interpretation should account for the limitations of functional annotation. Gene presence does not confirm gene expression or pathway activity. For example, in cheese microbiology, shotgun metagenomics can identify genes involved in amino acid catabolism, lipid metabolism, and citrate degradation, which are central to flavor formation and ripening. However, the presence of these genes does not confirm that the corresponding enzymes are active during ripening.

Validation approaches depend on the research question. For studies of antibiotic resistance, functional metagenomics can identify novel resistance genes through the construction and screening of metagenomic expression libraries. This approach involves preparing metagenomic libraries from fecal DNA, screening libraries for antibiotic resistance genes, performing massively parallel DNA sequencing of enriched DNA fragments, and using a computational pipeline for high-throughput assembly and annotation of functionally selected DNA. This functional selection approach provides stronger evidence for gene function than sequence-based prediction alone.

Options and Tradeoffs in Tool Selection

Command-Line Tools versus Online Services

Command-line annotation tools have gained popularity compared to centralized online services because of the worldwide increase in sequenced bacterial genomes. Command-line tools offer several advantages: they can process large datasets locally, they can be integrated into automated pipelines, and they do not require uploading potentially sensitive sequence data to external servers. However, command-line tools require computational resources and technical expertise to install and run.

Online services such as MG-RAST offer accessibility and ease of use but may have limitations on dataset size and customization options. The choice between command-line and online tools should consider data volume, computational resources, data sensitivity, and the need for reproducibility.

Read-Based versus Assembly-Based Approaches

Read-based functional profiling aligns sequencing reads directly against reference databases. This approach avoids the computational cost of assembly and works well for large datasets. However, read-based approaches lose the context of gene linkage and operon structure. Assembly-based approaches reconstruct longer contiguous sequences before annotation, preserving gene context and enabling MAG reconstruction. The tradeoff is that assembly requires substantially more sequencing depth and computational resources.

Benchmarking studies provide guidance on sequencing depth requirements. Reference-based analysis can provide accurate strain-level taxonomy at relatively low sequencing depths. By contrast, de novo MAG reconstruction requires deep sequencing, and even high-quality MAGs can be chimeric. Functionally, moderate sequencing depths can provide reliable insights at the pathway level, but sufficient proteome coverage requires substantially deeper sequencing.

Domain-Based Profiling

Domain-based profiling approaches such as MetaCLADE use profile-based methods to identify protein domains in metagenomic data. MetaCLADE applies directly to reads and improves identification of the catalog of functions in microbiomes. In evaluations on simulated data and more than ten metagenomic and metatranscriptomic datasets from different environments, MetaCLADE outperformed InterProScan in the number of annotated domains. A combination of MetaCLADE and UProC improved functional annotation of environmental samples even further.

Domain-based approaches are useful for cross-environment comparisons because they do not depend on the completeness of reference genomes. However, domain presence does not confirm that the corresponding function is active in the community.

Observations and Measurements

What Functional Annotation Can Reveal

Functional annotation of shotgun metagenomic data has been applied across diverse environments, revealing the functional capacity of microbial communities. In wastewater studies, shotgun metagenomics identified virulent gene families linked to pathogenic protozoa, including serine/threonine protein phosphatase and mucin-desulfating sulfatase. Enriched pathways included thiamine diphosphate biosynthesis. These findings demonstrate the utility of functional annotation for identifying public health-relevant functions in environmental samples.

In food microbiology, shotgun metagenomics has enabled the identification of key metabolic pathways central to flavor formation and ripening. Studies of long-ripened Cheddar cheese used shotgun metagenomic sequencing to investigate the diversity of the microbial community over 32 months of ripening. Functional profiles of PMA-treated cheeses differed from those of non-PMA-treated cheeses, demonstrating that the viable community has different functional potential than the total community including dead cells.

In soil microbiology, shotgun metagenomics data from tropical rainforest soils and arid-tropical natural wetlands have provided first reports on microbial and functional diversity in these environments. These studies demonstrate the value of functional annotation for characterizing previously unstudied ecosystems.

What Functional Annotation Cannot Reveal

Functional annotation reveals genetic potential, not activity. The presence of genes encoding degradation pathways does not confirm that contaminants are being degraded. In soil bioremediation, detection alone cannot confirm that a contaminant is being degraded by a defined pathway. Bioavailability limitations, redox microsites, relic DNA, gene mobility, and community restructuring can decouple gene presence from reaction flux.

This limitation has practical implications for interpreting functional profiles. A pathway reconstruction based on metagenomic data represents the genetic potential of the community, not the expressed functions. To confirm pathway operation, you need additional evidence from metatranscriptomics, metaproteomics, metabolomics, or stable isotope probing.

Records and Documentation

What to Record for Reproducibility

Reproducibility requires detailed documentation of every step in the annotation pipeline. For each analysis, record the following:

• Software versions for all tools used, including the annotation pipeline and its dependencies
• Database versions and download dates for all reference databases
• Parameter settings for quality filtering, assembly, gene prediction, and annotation
• Input data characteristics, including sequencing platform, read length, and sequencing depth
• Computational resources used, including CPU hours and memory
• Output file locations and formats

The FAIR Guiding Principles provide a framework for making data findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. Applying these principles to functional annotation results ensures that others can reproduce and build upon your analysis.

Quality Metrics to Track

Several quality metrics should be tracked throughout the annotation pipeline:

• Percentage of reads passing quality filtering
• Assembly statistics, including N50 and number of contigs
• Number of genes predicted per genome or metagenome
• Percentage of genes with functional annotations
• Percentage of genes with database cross-references
• Completeness of KEGG modules or pathways

These metrics provide a basis for comparing annotation quality across samples and for identifying potential problems in the pipeline.

Common Failure Patterns

Overinterpreting Gene Presence as Activity

The most common failure in functional metagenomics is treating gene presence as evidence of pathway operation. This failure leads to incorrect conclusions about community function. To avoid this error, explicitly state the inferential level supported by your data. Gene presence supports statements about genetic potential, not activity.

Ignoring Sequencing Depth Requirements

Insufficient sequencing depth leads to incomplete assemblies and biased functional profiles. Benchmarking studies show that shallow metagenomics has limitations for strain-level analysis and MAG reconstruction. If your research question requires detailed pathway analysis, ensure that your sequencing depth is adequate for the intended analysis.

Using Inappropriate Reference Databases

The choice of reference database affects annotation quality. Databases that are taxon-specific may miss functions from organisms outside the target taxa. Databases that are incomplete may fail to annotate novel genes. For metagenomic data, use databases that cover the expected taxonomic diversity of your samples.

Failing to Validate Annotations

Automated annotation tools can produce incorrect assignments, especially for genes with low similarity to known sequences. Validation approaches include manual inspection of alignments, comparison across multiple annotation tools, and functional validation through expression studies. For studies of antibiotic resistance, functional metagenomics provides a validation approach that confirms gene function through expression screening.

Neglecting Metadata

Functional profiles are only interpretable in the context of sample metadata. Environmental conditions, sample processing methods, and sequencing protocols all affect functional profiles. Without complete metadata, functional comparisons across samples may be misleading.

Limitations of Functional Metagenomics

Reference Database Completeness

The lack of a complete and comprehensive library of microbial reference genomes makes determining the functional profile of diverse microbial communities challenging. Many environmental microbes have no close relatives in reference databases, limiting the accuracy of functional annotations. This limitation is particularly acute for novel or poorly characterized environments.

Chimeric Assemblies

MAGs deemed high quality by standard metrics can be chimeric, with a substantial fraction accurately representing original strains depending on the bioinformatic approach. Chimeric assemblies lead to incorrect functional annotations because genes from different organisms are combined into a single genome. This problem is especially relevant for pathway reconstruction, where the presence of a complete pathway in a chimeric MAG may not reflect the metabolic capability of any single organism.

Functional Redundancy

Functional redundancy in microbial communities means that multiple organisms may encode the same function. This redundancy complicates the interpretation of functional profiles because the abundance of a functional gene does not necessarily reflect the abundance of the organisms carrying it. In soil systems, functional redundancy can obscure the agency of specific organisms in contaminant degradation.

Strain-Level Variation

Functional annotation at the species level may miss strain-level variation in functional capabilities. Shotgun metagenomics can enable sequence variant analysis below the bacterial species level, but this analysis requires sufficient sequencing depth and appropriate bioinformatic approaches.

Safety and Regulatory Context

Data Sharing and Privacy

Metagenomic data may contain sequences from human-associated microbes, and in some cases, human reads may be present in the data. The NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy provides guidance on the responsible sharing of genomic data, including considerations for privacy and informed consent. When working with metagenomic data from human-associated samples, follow applicable data sharing policies and remove human reads before analysis.

Antimicrobial Resistance Research

Functional metagenomics is a powerful approach for studying antibiotic resistance. The construction and screening of metagenomic expression libraries can identify novel antibiotic resistance genes. This research has important public health implications but also raises biosafety considerations. Follow institutional biosafety guidelines when working with antibiotic resistance genes and ensure that research is conducted responsibly.

Food Safety Applications

Shotgun metagenomics has applications in food safety, including the identification of bacteriocin production, antimicrobial resistance, and virulence genes in food microbiomes. These applications can improve product authenticity, traceability, and safety assessment. However, analytical restrictions concerning data handling and interpretation need to be addressed by importing standardization steps and moving toward integrating multi-omics approaches.

Professional Escalation Criteria

When to Seek Additional Expertise

Several situations warrant escalation to a specialist or additional expertise:

• If functional annotations are inconsistent across multiple tools, seek guidance on tool selection and parameter optimization
• If pathway reconstructions suggest unexpected metabolic capabilities, verify the underlying annotations before drawing conclusions
• If working with data from human-associated samples, consult institutional review boards and data governance experts
• If functional metagenomics identifies potential antibiotic resistance genes with clinical relevance, consult public health experts
• If computational resources are insufficient for the planned analysis, consult with bioinformatics core facilities or high-performance computing centers

When to Question Your Results

Question your results when:

• Annotation rates are unusually low or high compared to similar datasets
• Pathway completeness differs dramatically between closely related samples
• Functional profiles are dominated by a small number of abundant genes
• Results are sensitive to small changes in analysis parameters
• Conclusions rely on genes with low similarity to known sequences

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between taxonomic and functional metagenomics?

Taxonomic metagenomics identifies which organisms are present in a community, while functional metagenomics identifies what those organisms are capable of doing. Taxonomic analysis typically uses marker genes or whole-genome comparisons to classify sequences. Functional analysis annotates genes with functional categories and reconstructs metabolic pathways. Both approaches can be applied to the same shotgun metagenomic data, but they answer different biological questions.

Should I annotate reads or assembled contigs?

The choice depends on your research question and data volume. Read-based annotation is faster and works for large datasets, but loses gene context. Assembly-based annotation provides richer information, including gene linkage and operon structure, but requires sufficient sequencing depth. For pathway reconstruction, assembly-based annotation is generally preferred because it preserves the context needed to assess pathway completeness.

Which annotation database should I use?

No single database captures all functional information. Combining multiple databases reduces blind spots. KEGG provides pathway information, Gene Ontology provides functional categories, Pfam provides protein domains, and InterPro integrates multiple protein signature databases. Tools such as MicrobeAnnotator combine results from several databases and return interlinked identifiers, simplifying downstream analysis.

How much sequencing depth do I need for functional analysis?

The required depth depends on the analysis. Reference-based analysis can provide accurate results at relatively low depths. De novo MAG reconstruction requires deep sequencing, and even high-quality MAGs can be chimeric. For pathway-level functional insights, moderate depths may be sufficient, but sufficient proteome coverage requires substantially deeper sequencing. Benchmark your specific analysis to determine appropriate depth.

Can functional metagenomics confirm that a pathway is active?

No. Functional metagenomics reveals genetic potential, not activity. Gene presence does not confirm gene expression or pathway operation. To confirm activity, you need additional evidence from metatranscriptomics, metaproteomics, metabolomics, or stable isotope probing. When interpreting functional profiles, be explicit about which inferential level your data supports.

How do I validate functional annotations?

Validation approaches include manual inspection of alignments, comparison across multiple annotation tools, and functional validation through expression studies. For antibiotic resistance genes, functional metagenomics provides a validation approach that confirms gene function through expression screening. For other functions, targeted experiments may be needed to confirm predicted activities.

What causes chimeric metagenome-assembled genomes?

Chimeric MAGs arise when assembly incorrectly joins sequences from different organisms. This problem is more common in complex communities with closely related strains. Even MAGs deemed high quality by standard metrics can be chimeric. The fraction of MAGs that accurately represent original strains depends on the bioinformatic approach. Chimeric assemblies lead to incorrect functional annotations and pathway reconstructions.

How should I report functional metagenomics results?

Report all software versions, database versions, and parameter settings. Provide quality metrics for each step of the pipeline. State the inferential level supported by your data, distinguishing genetic potential from activity. Follow the FAIR Guiding Principles to make your data findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. When sharing data, follow applicable data sharing policies, including the NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy for human-associated data.

Related Bioinformatics Guides

• The KEGG Database and Pathway Analysis
• Metagenomics Taxonomic Classification: Kraken2 and Functional Annotation Pipelines
• AlphaFold2-Based Structural Modeling and Functional Annotation of PRRSV Nonstructural Proteins
• Structural and Functional Annotation of Novel Bat Coronaviruses using AlphaFold2 and Molecular Docking
• MicroRNA Target Prediction Tools

References and Further Reading

• EMBL-EBI Training. European Bioinformatics Institute.
• NCBI Data Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
• Genomic Data Sharing Policy. National Institutes of Health.
• The FAIR Guiding Principles. Scientific Data.
• Bakta: rapid and standardized annotation of bacterial genomes via alignment-free sequence identification.. Microbial genomics, 2021.
• MicrobeAnnotator: a user-friendly, comprehensive functional annotation pipeline for microbial genomes.. BMC bioinformatics, 2021.
• MetaLAFFA: a flexible, end-to-end, distributed computing-compatible metagenomic functional annotation pipeline.. BMC bioinformatics, 2020.
• FMAP: Functional Mapping and Analysis Pipeline for metagenomics and metatranscriptomics studies.. BMC bioinformatics, 2016.
• MEDUSA: A Pipeline for Sensitive Taxonomic Classification and Flexible Functional Annotation of Metagenomic Shotgun Sequences.. Frontiers in genetics, 2022.
• Functional Metagenomics to Study Antibiotic Resistance.. Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2023.
• A multi-source domain annotation pipeline for quantitative metagenomic and metatranscriptomic functional profiling.. Microbiome, 2018.
• Functional Metagenomics to Study Antibiotic Resistance.. Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2017.
• Water kefir as a paradigm for multi-omics and genome-scale metabolic modelling in fermented food.. 2026.
• Advances in Shotgun Metagenomics for Cheese Microbiology: From Microbial Dynamics to Functional Insights.. 2026.
• Molecular Monitoring in Soil Bioremediation: From Genetic Potential to Verified Pathway Operation.. 2026.
• Omics-Guided Construction of Microbial Consortia for Reproducible Traditional Fermented Foods and Beverages.. 2026.
• Benchmarking of shotgun sequencing depth reveals the potential and limitations of shallow metagenomics and strain-level analysis.. 2026.
• Advances in natural product discovery: strategies, technologies, and insights.. 2026.
• Taxonomy, Sequence Variance and Functional Profiling of the Microbial Community of Long-Ripened Cheddar Cheese Using Shotgun Metagenomics. Microorganisms, 2023.
• Soil microbial diversity and functional profiling of a tropical rainforest of a highly dissected low hill from the upper Itaya river basin revealed by analysis of shotgun metagenomics sequencing data. Data in Brief, 2022.
• Profiling pathogenic protozoan and their functional pathways in wastewater using 18S rRNA and shotgun metagenomics.. Science of the Total Environment, 2023.
• Functional and Resistome Profiling of Paediatric Airway Microbiota in Asthma Using Shotgun Metagenomics. Biomedicines, 2026.
• First functional and taxonomic insights into the microbiome of edible snail, Cipangopaludina lecythis via shotgun metagenomics. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, 2025.
• Sediment microbiome diversity and functional profiles of unprotected arid-tropical natural wetlands in South Africa revealed by shotgun metagenomics data. Data in Brief, 2023.
• MetaStorm: A public resource for customizable metagenomics annotation. Plos One, 2016.
• EURYALE: A versatile Nextflow pipeline for taxonomic classification and functional annotation of metagenomics data. 21st IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology Cibcb 2024, 2024.
• Evaluation of a hybrid approach using UBLAST and BLASTX for metagenomic sequences annotation of specific functional genes. Plos One, 2014.
• The viral metagenome annotation pipeline (VMGAP): An automated tool for the functional annotation of viral metagenomic shotgun sequencing data. Standards in Genomic Sciences, 2011.
• From gene annotation to function prediction for metagenomics. Methods in Molecular Biology, 2017.
• Comparative metagenomics analysis of palm oil mill effluent (Pome) using three different bioinformatics pipelines. Iium Engineering Journal, 2019.

This article is educational and does not replace validated analysis plans, institutional policy, clinical interpretation, or specialist review.