ArticlePloS one2015
New perspectives on microbial community distortion after whole-genome amplification.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using Carrier DNA in Ultra-Low Input Library Preparations for Next-Generation Sequencing.Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT · 2026Article
- Improved Sensitivity of Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction and Next Generation Sequencing for Detection of Salmonella spp. in Mixed Environmental Communities Using Whole Genome Amplification.MicrobiologyOpen · 2025Article
- Cytological evaluation, culture and genomics to evaluate the microbiome in healthy rabbit external ear canals.Veterinary dermatology · 2024Article
- Dancing the Nanopore limbo - Nanopore metagenomics from small DNA quantities for bacterial genome reconstruction.BMC genomics · 2023Article
- Gauge your phage: benchmarking of bacteriophage identification tools in metagenomic sequencing data.Microbiome · 2023Article
- Conservation of Genomic Information in Multiple Displacement Amplified Low-Quantity Metagenomic Material from Marine Invertebrates.Marine drugs · 2023Article
- Novel Virus Identification through Metagenomics: A Systematic Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Toward efficient and high-fidelity metagenomic data from sub-nanogram DNA: evaluation of library preparation and decontamination methods.BMC biology · 2022Article
- Metagenomic Sequencing for Microbial DNA in Human Samples: Emerging Technological Advances.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Advances in Metagenomics and Its Application in Environmental Microorganisms.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Review
- Metagenomic Studies in Inflammatory Skin Diseases.Current microbiology · 2020Review
- Adsorption Sequencing as a Rapid Method to Link Environmental Bacteriophages to Hosts.iScience · 2020Article
- From the Pipeline to the Bedside: Advances and Challenges in Clinical Metagenomics.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2020Review
- Gut Bacteriophage: Current Understanding and Challenges.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2019Review
- Distinctive Archaeal Composition of an Artisanal Crystallizer Pond and Functional Insights Into Salt-Saturated Hypersaline Environment Adaptation.Frontiers in microbiology · 2018Article
- Library Construction from Subnanogram DNA for Pelagic Sea Water and Deep-Sea Sediments.Microbes and environments · 2017Article
- Beyond the bulk: disclosing the life of single microbial cells.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2017Review
- Shotgun metagenomics, from sampling to analysis.Nature biotechnology · 2017Review
- Impact of Contaminating DNA in Whole-Genome Amplification Kits Used for Metagenomic Shotgun Sequencing for Infection Diagnosis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Article
- Picodroplet partitioned whole genome amplification of low biomass samples preserves genomic diversity for metagenomic analysis.Microbiome · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whole-genome amplification (WGA) has become an important tool to explore the genomic information of microorganisms in an environmental sample with limited biomass, however potential selective biases during the amplification processes are poorly understood. Here, we describe the effects of WGA on 31 different microbial communities from five biotopes that also included low-biomass samples from drinking water and groundwater. Our findings provide evidence that microbiome segregation by biotope was possible despite WGA treatment. Nevertheless, samples from different biotopes revealed different levels of distortion, with genomic GC content significantly correlated with WGA perturbation. Certain phylogenetic clades revealed a homogenous trend across various sample types, for instance Alpha- and Betaproteobacteria showed a decrease in their abundance after WGA treatment. On the other hand, Enterobacteriaceae, an important biomarker group for fecal contamination in groundwater and drinking water, were strongly affected by WGA treatment without a predictable pattern. These novel results describe the impact of WGA on low-biomass samples and may highlight issues to be aware of when designing future metagenomic studies that necessitate preceding WGA treatment.
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.