Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25387460›Full record

ArticleBMC biology2014

Reagent and laboratory contamination can critically impact sequence-based microbiome analyses.

Susannah J Salter, Michael J Cox, Elena M Turek, Szymon T Calus, William O Cookson, Miriam F Moffatt, Paul Turner, Julian Parkhill, Nicholas J Loman, Alan W Walker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1,930 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1,930citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1,930 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Diagnostic accuracy and clinical considerations of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in prosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

1,870 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

10 authors.

Susannah J SalterPathogen Genomics Group, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, UK. sb18@sanger.ac.uk.
Michael J Cox
Elena M Turek
Szymon T Calus
William O Cookson
Miriam F Moffatt
Paul Turner
Julian Parkhill
Nicholas J Loman
Alan W Walker

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/J014370/1Medical Research Council MR/L015080/1Wellcome Trust 097117
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe study of microbial communities has been revolutionised in recent years by the widespread adoption of culture independent analytical techniques such as 16S rRNA gene sequencing and metagenomics. One potential confounder of these sequence-based approaches is the presence of contamination in DNA extraction kits and other laboratory reagents.

resultsIn this study we demonstrate that contaminating DNA is ubiquitous in commonly used DNA extraction kits and other laboratory reagents, varies greatly in composition between different kits and kit batches, and that this contamination critically impacts results obtained from samples containing a low microbial biomass. Contamination impacts both PCR-based 16S rRNA gene surveys and shotgun metagenomics. We provide an extensive list of potential contaminating genera, and guidelines on how to mitigate the effects of contamination.

conclusionsThese results suggest that caution should be advised when applying sequence-based techniques to the study of microbiota present in low biomass environments. Concurrent sequencing of negative control samples is strongly advised.

Indexed as

DNA ContaminationLaboratoriesMetagenomicsMicrobiotaIndicators and ReagentsPolymerase Chain ReactionRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSalmonellaSequence Analysis, DNAIndicators and ReagentsRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID25387460
PMCPMC4228153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.