Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21716311›Full record

ArticleThe ISME journal2012

Impact of training sets on classification of high-throughput bacterial 16s rRNA gene surveys.

Jeffrey J Werner, Omry Koren, Philip Hugenholtz, Todd Z DeSantis, William A Walters, J Gregory Caporaso, Largus T Angenent, Rob Knight, Ruth E Ley

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The ISME journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 268 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
268citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

268 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 620 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

208 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Jeffrey J WernerDepartment of Biological and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.
Omry Koren
Philip Hugenholtz
Todd Z DeSantis
William A Walters
J Gregory Caporaso
Largus T Angenent
Rob Knight
Ruth E Ley
Cornell University · USUniversity of Colorado Boulder · USLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory · USUniversity of Queensland · AU

Funding

A Quality Assurance, Coordination and Analysis Center for HMPU01HG004866 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI WHITE, OWEN R · 2008 to 2012
$12.5M
Foregut microbiome in development of esophageal adenocarcinomaUH3CA140233 · NCI · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI NELSON, KAREN E., PEI, ZHIHENG · 2010 to 2014
$6.1M
TRAINING IN SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION &CELL CYCLE REGULATIONT32GM008759 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER · PI AHN, NATALIE G. · 2000 to 2020
$5.9M
Predoctoral Training Program in Signaling and Cellular Regulation INCLUDE Down Syndrome SupplementT32GM142607 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO · PI Sabrina Leigh Spencer, Tin Tin Su · 2021 to 2026
$3.6M
Foregut microbiome in development of esophageal adenocarcinomaUH2CA140233 · NCI · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI NELSON, KAREN E., PEI, ZHIHENG · 2009 to 2009
$1.1M
NCI NIH HHS UH2/UH3CA140233NCI NIH HHS UH3 CA140233NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG004866NHGRI NIH HHS U01-HG004866NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM008759NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM142607
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Taxonomic classification of the thousands-millions of 16S rRNA gene sequences generated in microbiome studies is often achieved using a naïve Bayesian classifier (for example, the Ribosomal Database Project II (RDP) classifier), due to favorable trade-offs among automation, speed and accuracy. The resulting classification depends on the reference sequences and taxonomic hierarchy used to train the model; although the influence of primer sets and classification algorithms have been explored in detail, the influence of training set has not been characterized. We compared classification results obtained using three different publicly available databases as training sets, applied to five different bacterial 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing data sets generated (from human body, mouse gut, python gut, soil and anaerobic digester samples). We observed numerous advantages to using the largest, most diverse training set available, that we constructed from the Greengenes (GG) bacterial/archaeal 16S rRNA gene sequence database and the latest GG taxonomy. Phylogenetic clusters of previously unclassified experimental sequences were identified with notable improvements (for example, 50% reduction in reads unclassified at the phylum level in mouse gut, soil and anaerobic digester samples), especially for phylotypes belonging to specific phyla (Tenericutes, Chloroflexi, Synergistetes and Candidate phyla TM6, TM7). Trimming the reference sequences to the primer region resulted in systematic improvements in classification depth, and greatest gains at higher confidence thresholds. Phylotypes unclassified at the genus level represented a greater proportion of the total community variation than classified operational taxonomic units in mouse gut and anaerobic digester samples, underscoring the need for greater diversity in existing reference databases.

Indexed as

MetagenomeAlgorithmsAnimalsArchaeaBacteriaBayes TheoremDNA, ArchaealDNA, BacterialGastrointestinal TractHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMicePhylogenyRibotypingRNA, Ribosomal, 16SDNA, ArchaealDNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID21716311
PMCPMC3217155
OpenAlexW2045073446

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.