Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26196512›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Nested PCR Biases in Interpreting Microbial Community Structure in 16S rRNA Gene Sequence Datasets.

Guoqin Yu, Doug Fadrosh, James J Goedert, Jacques Ravel, Alisa M Goldstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The role of neighborhood deprivation in the cervicovaginal microbiota.American journal of obstetrics & gynecology MFM · 2024
    Article
  10. Advances in detection methods for viable Salmonella spp.: current applications and challenges.Analytical sciences : the international journal of the Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry · 2023
    Review
  11. The link betweenAnnals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. DNA diagnostics for reliable and universal identification ofWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2021
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Guoqin YuDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Doug FadroshInstitute of Genomic Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
James J GoedertDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Jacques RavelInstitute of Genomic Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Alisa M GoldsteinDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSequencing of the PCR-amplified 16S rRNA gene has become a common approach to microbial community investigations in the fields of human health and environmental sciences. This approach, however, is difficult when the amount of DNA is too low to be amplified by standard PCR. Nested PCR can be employed as it can amplify samples with DNA concentration several-fold lower than standard PCR. However, potential biases with nested PCRs that could affect measurement of community structure have received little attention.

resultsIn this study, we used 17 DNAs extracted from vaginal swabs and 12 DNAs extracted from stool samples to study the influence of nested PCR amplification of the 16S rRNA gene on the estimation of microbial community structure using Illumina MiSeq sequencing. Nested and standard PCR methods were compared on alpha- and beta-diversity metrics and relative abundances of bacterial genera. The effects of number of cycles in the first round of PCR (10 vs. 20) and microbial diversity (relatively low in vagina vs. high in stool) were also investigated. Vaginal swab samples showed no significant difference in alpha diversity or community structure between nested PCR and standard PCR (one round of 40 cycles). Stool samples showed significant differences in alpha diversity (except Shannon's index) and relative abundance of 13 genera between nested PCR with 20 cycles in the first round and standard PCR (P<0.01), but not between nested PCR with 10 cycles in the first round and standard PCR. Operational taxonomic units (OTUs) that had low relative abundance (sum of relative abundance <0.167) accounted for most of the distortion (>27% of total OTUs in stool).

conclusionsNested PCR introduced bias in estimated diversity and community structure. The bias was more significant for communities with relatively higher diversity and when more cycles were applied in the first round of PCR. We conclude that nested PCR could be used when standard PCR does not work. However, rare taxa detected by nested PCR should be validated by other technologies.

Indexed as

AdultBacteriaBase SequenceFecesFemaleHumansMolecular Sequence DataPolymerase Chain ReactionRNA, Ribosomal, 16SVaginaRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID26196512
PMCPMC4509648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.