Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26763898›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2016

A comprehensive benchmarking study of protocols and sequencing platforms for 16S rRNA community profiling.

Rosalinda D'Amore, Umer Zeeshan Ijaz, Melanie Schirmer, John G Kenny, Richard Gregory, Alistair C Darby, Migun Shakya, Mircea Podar, Christopher Quince, Neil Hall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 202 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
202citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

202 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Microbial dysbiosis and inferred functional profiling reveals the potential role ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

142 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.

Rosalinda D'AmoreInstitute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK. linda.damore@liverpool.ac.uk.
Umer Zeeshan IjazSchool of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8LT, UK. Umer.Ijaz@glasgow.ac.uk.
Melanie SchirmerSchool of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8LT, UK. melanie@broadinstitute.org.
John G KennyInstitute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK. jkenny@liv.ac.uk.
Richard GregoryInstitute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK. greg@liv.ac.uk.
Alistair C DarbyInstitute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK.
Migun ShakyaDepartment of Biological Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH03755, USA. microbeatic@gmail.com.
Mircea PodarBiosciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, 37831, TN, USA. podarm@ornl.gov.
Christopher QuinceWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Warwick, CV4 7AL, UK. C.Quince@warwick.ac.uk.
Neil HallInstitute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK. neilhall@liverpool.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K002279/1Medical Research Council MR/L015080/1Medical Research Council MR/M50161X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the last 5 years, the rapid pace of innovations and improvements in sequencing technologies has completely changed the landscape of metagenomic and metagenetic experiments. Therefore, it is critical to benchmark the various methodologies for interrogating the composition of microbial communities, so that we can assess their strengths and limitations. The most common phylogenetic marker for microbial community diversity studies is the 16S ribosomal RNA gene and in the last 10 years the field has moved from sequencing a small number of amplicons and samples to more complex studies where thousands of samples and multiple different gene regions are interrogated.

resultsWe assembled 2 synthetic communities with an even (EM) and uneven (UM) distribution of archaeal and bacterial strains and species, as metagenomic control material, to assess performance of different experimental strategies. The 2 synthetic communities were used in this study, to highlight the limitations and the advantages of the leading sequencing platforms: MiSeq (Illumina), The Pacific Biosciences RSII, 454 GS-FLX/+ (Roche), and IonTorrent (Life Technologies). We describe an extensive survey based on synthetic communities using 3 experimental designs (fusion primers, universal tailed tag, ligated adaptors) across the 9 hypervariable 16S rDNA regions. We demonstrate that library preparation methodology can affect data interpretation due to different error and chimera rates generated during the procedure. The observed community composition was always biased, to a degree that depended on the platform, sequenced region and primer choice. However, crucially, our analysis suggests that 16S rRNA sequencing is still quantitative, in that relative changes in abundance of taxa between samples can be recovered, despite these biases.

conclusionWe have assessed a range of experimental conditions across several next generation sequencing platforms using the most up-to-date configurations. We propose that the choice of sequencing platform and experimental design needs to be taken into consideration in the early stage of a project by running a small trial consisting of several hypervariable regions to quantify the discriminatory power of each region. We also suggest that the use of a synthetic community as a positive control would be beneficial to identify the potential biases and procedural drawbacks that may lead to data misinterpretation. The results of this study will serve as a guideline for making decisions on which experimental condition and sequencing platform to consider to achieve the best microbial profiling.

Indexed as

Genome, BacterialMetagenomicsBacteriaBenchmarkingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingPhylogenyRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID26763898
PMCPMC4712552

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.