Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28453559›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Evaluation of the reproducibility of amplicon sequencing with Illumina MiSeq platform.

Chongqing Wen, Liyou Wu, Yujia Qin, Joy D Van Nostrand, Daliang Ning, Bo Sun, Kai Xue, Feifei Liu, Ye Deng, Yuting Liang and 1 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed
–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

56 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Decoding the genome of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis VCRC B668 to understand its mosquitocidal potential for biopesticide development.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Influence ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

11 authors.

Chongqing WenInstitute for Environmental Genomics, Department of Microbiology and Plant Biology, and School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, United States of America.
Liyou WuInstitute for Environmental Genomics, Department of Microbiology and Plant Biology, and School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3048-6876
Yujia QinInstitute for Environmental Genomics, Department of Microbiology and Plant Biology, and School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, United States of America.
Joy D Van NostrandInstitute for Environmental Genomics, Department of Microbiology and Plant Biology, and School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, United States of America.
Daliang NingInstitute for Environmental Genomics, Department of Microbiology and Plant Biology, and School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, United States of America.
Bo SunState Key Laboratory of Soil and Sustainable Agriculture, Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, China.
Kai XueInstitute for Environmental Genomics, Department of Microbiology and Plant Biology, and School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, United States of America.
Feifei LiuInstitute for Environmental Genomics, Department of Microbiology and Plant Biology, and School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, United States of America.
Ye DengInstitute for Environmental Genomics, Department of Microbiology and Plant Biology, and School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, United States of America.
Yuting LiangState Key Laboratory of Soil and Sustainable Agriculture, Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, China.
Jizhong ZhouInstitute for Environmental Genomics, Department of Microbiology and Plant Biology, and School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Illumina's MiSeq has become the dominant platform for gene amplicon sequencing in microbial ecology studies; however, various technical concerns, such as reproducibility, still exist. To assess reproducibility, 16S rRNA gene amplicons from 18 soil samples of a reciprocal transplantation experiment were sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq. The V4 region of 16S rRNA gene from each sample was sequenced in triplicate with each replicate having a unique barcode. The average OTU overlap, without considering sequence abundance, at a rarefaction level of 10,323 sequences was 33.4±2.1% and 20.2±1.7% between two and among three technical replicates, respectively. When OTU sequence abundance was considered, the average sequence abundance weighted OTU overlap was 85.6±1.6% and 81.2±2.1% for two and three replicates, respectively. Removing singletons significantly increased the overlap for both (~1-3%, p<0.001). Increasing the sequencing depth to 160,000 reads by deep sequencing increased OTU overlap both when sequence abundance was considered (95%) and when not (44%). However, if singletons were not removed the overlap between two technical replicates (not considering sequence abundance) plateaus at 39% with 30,000 sequences. Diversity measures were not affected by the low overlap as α-diversities were similar among technical replicates while β-diversities (Bray-Curtis) were much smaller among technical replicates than among treatment replicates (e.g., 0.269 vs. 0.374). Higher diversity coverage, but lower OTU overlap, was observed when replicates were sequenced in separate runs. Detrended correspondence analysis indicated that while there was considerable variation among technical replicates, the reproducibility was sufficient for detecting treatment effects for the samples examined. These results suggest that although there is variation among technical replicates, amplicon sequencing on MiSeq is useful for analyzing microbial community structure if used appropriately and with caution. For example, including technical replicates, removing spurious sequences and unrepresentative OTUs, using a clustering method with a high stringency for OTU generation, estimating treatment effects at higher taxonomic levels, and adapting the unique molecular identifier (UMI) and other newly developed methods to lower PCR and sequencing error and to identify true low abundance rare species all can increase reproducibility.

Indexed as

Analysis of VarianceBiodiversityDNAHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMicrobiotaPolymerase Chain ReactionReproducibility of ResultsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSoil MicrobiologyDNARNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID28453559
PMCPMC5409056

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.