ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2014
Assessing the accuracy of quantitative molecular microbial profiling.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Paucibacterial Microbiome and Resident DNA Virome of the Healthy Conjunctiva.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2016Trial
- Integrated omics analyses reveal insights into microbial dark matter associated with deep-sea water in Central Indian Ocean.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2026Article
- Quantification ofWorld journal of hepatology · 2025Article
- Bacterial diversity in the aquatic system in India based on metagenome analysis-a critical review.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2023Review
- Influence of Taxonomic and Functional Content of Microbial Communities on the Quality of Fermented Cocoa Pulp-Bean Mass.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2021Article
- An inter-laboratory study to investigate the impact of the bioinformatics component on microbiome analysis using mock communities.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- STROBE-metagenomics: a STROBE extension statement to guide the reporting of metagenomics studies.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2020Review
- Article
- Highlighting Clinical Metagenomics for Enhanced Diagnostic Decision-making: A Step Towards Wider Implementation.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2018Review
- Review
- Quantifying rigidity of Parkinson's disease in relation to laxative treatment: a service evaluation.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Article
- Metagenomic sequencing reveals the relationship between microbiota composition and quality of Chinese Rice Wine.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- A comprehensive benchmarking study of protocols and sequencing platforms for 16S rRNA community profiling.BMC genomics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The application of high-throughput sequencing in profiling microbial communities is providing an unprecedented ability to investigate microbiomes. Such studies typically apply one of two methods: amplicon sequencing using PCR to target a conserved orthologous sequence (typically the 16S ribosomal RNA gene) or whole (meta)genome sequencing (WGS). Both methods have been used to catalog the microbial taxa present in a sample and quantify their respective abundances. However, a comparison of the inherent precision or bias of the different sequencing approaches has not been performed. We previously developed a metagenomic control material (MCM) to investigate error when performing different sequencing strategies. Amplicon sequencing using four different primer strategies and two 16S rRNA regions was examined (Roche 454 Junior) and compared to WGS (Illumina HiSeq). All sequencing methods generally performed comparably and in good agreement with organism specific digital PCR (dPCR); WGS notably demonstrated very high precision. Where discrepancies between relative abundances occurred they tended to differ by less than twofold. Our findings suggest that when alternative sequencing approaches are used for microbial molecular profiling they can perform with good reproducibility, but care should be taken when comparing small differences between distinct methods. This work provides a foundation for future work comparing relative differences between samples and the impact of extraction methods. We also highlight the value of control materials when conducting microbial profiling studies to benchmark methods and set appropriate thresholds.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.