Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27842515›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2016

Evaluation of PacBio sequencing for full-length bacterial 16S rRNA gene classification.

Josef Wagner, Paul Coupland, Hilary P Browne, Trevor D Lawley, Suzanna C Francis, Julian Parkhill

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 112 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
112citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

112 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 221 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

52 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Josef WagnerWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, CB10 1SA, Cambridge, UK. jw22@sanger.ac.uk.
Paul CouplandWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, CB10 1SA, Cambridge, UK.
Hilary P BrowneWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, CB10 1SA, Cambridge, UK.
Trevor D LawleyWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, CB10 1SA, Cambridge, UK.
Suzanna C FrancisTropical Epidemiology Group, London Schools of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Julian ParkhillWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, CB10 1SA, Cambridge, UK.
Wellcome Sanger Institute · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0701039Medical Research Council G1002369Wellcome Trust 098051
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrently, bacterial 16S rRNA gene analyses are based on sequencing of individual variable regions of the 16S rRNA gene (Kozich, et al Appl Environ Microbiol 79:5112-5120, 2013).This short read approach can introduce biases. Thus, full-length bacterial 16S rRNA gene sequencing is needed to reduced biases. A new alternative for full-length bacterial 16S rRNA gene sequencing is offered by PacBio single molecule, real-time (SMRT) technology. The aim of our study was to validate PacBio P6 sequencing chemistry using three approaches: 1) sequencing the full-length bacterial 16S rRNA gene from a single bacterial species Staphylococcus aureus to analyze error modes and to optimize the bioinformatics pipeline; 2) sequencing the full-length bacterial 16S rRNA gene from a pool of 50 different bacterial colonies from human stool samples to compare with full-length bacterial 16S rRNA capillary sequence; and 3) sequencing the full-length bacterial 16S rRNA genes from 11 vaginal microbiome samples and compare with in silico selected bacterial 16S rRNA V1V2 gene region and with bacterial 16S rRNA V1V2 gene regions sequenced using the Illumina MiSeq.

resultsOur optimized bioinformatics pipeline for PacBio sequence analysis was able to achieve an error rate of 0.007% on the Staphylococcus aureus full-length 16S rRNA gene. Capillary sequencing of the full-length bacterial 16S rRNA gene from the pool of 50 colonies from stool identified 40 bacterial species of which up to 80% could be identified by PacBio full-length bacterial 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Analysis of the human vaginal microbiome using the bacterial 16S rRNA V1V2 gene region on MiSeq generated 129 operational taxonomic units (OTUs) from which 70 species could be identified. For the PacBio, 36,000 sequences from over 58,000 raw reads could be assigned to a barcode, and the in silico selected bacterial 16S rRNA V1V2 gene region generated 154 OTUs grouped into 63 species, of which 62% were shared with the MiSeq dataset. The PacBio full-length bacterial 16S rRNA gene datasets generated 261 OTUs, which were grouped into 52 species, of which 54% were shared with the MiSeq dataset. Alpha diversity index reported a higher diversity in the MiSeq dataset.

conclusionThe PacBio sequencing error rate is now in the same range of the previously widely used Roche 454 sequencing platform and current MiSeq platform. Species-level microbiome analysis revealed some inconsistencies between the full-length bacterial 16S rRNA gene capillary sequencing and PacBio sequencing.

Indexed as

Base SequenceBiodiversityComputational BiologyDNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalFemaleGenetic VariationHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMetagenomeMicrobiotaPhylogenyRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSequence Analysis, DNAStaphylococcus aureusVaginaDNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalRNA, Ribosomal, 16SCapillary sequencingFull-length bacterial 16S rRNA gene sequencingMiSeq sequencingPacBio sequencing

Identifiers

PMID27842515
PMCPMC5109829
OpenAlexW2555217590

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.