Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29954453›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2018

Evaluation of bias induced by viral enrichment and random amplification protocols in metagenomic surveys of saliva DNA viruses.

Marcos Parras-Moltó, Ana Rodríguez-Galet, Patricia Suárez-Rodríguez, Alberto López-Bueno

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing 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

80 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. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The respiratory tract virome: unravelling the role of viral dark matter in respiratory health and disease.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025
    Review
  20. Article

20 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

4 authors.

Marcos Parras-MoltóCentro de Biología Molecular Severo Ochoa (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid/Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas), Madrid, Spain.
Ana Rodríguez-GaletCentro de Biología Molecular Severo Ochoa (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid/Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas), Madrid, Spain.
Patricia Suárez-RodríguezCentro de Biología Molecular Severo Ochoa (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid/Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas), Madrid, Spain.
Alberto López-BuenoCentro de Biología Molecular Severo Ochoa (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid/Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas), Madrid, Spain. alopezbueno@cbm.csic.es.ORCID 0000-0002-6324-8623

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundViruses are key players regulating microbial ecosystems. Exploration of viral assemblages is now possible thanks to the development of metagenomics, the most powerful tool available for studying viral ecology and discovering new viruses. Unfortunately, several sources of bias lead to the misrepresentation of certain viruses within metagenomics workflows, hindering the shift from merely descriptive studies towards quantitative comparisons of communities. Therefore, benchmark studies on virus enrichment and random amplification protocols are required to better understand the sources of bias.

resultsWe assessed the bias introduced by viral enrichment on mock assemblages composed of seven DNA viruses, and the bias from random amplification methods on human saliva DNA viromes, using qPCR and deep sequencing, respectively. While iodixanol cushions and 0.45 μm filtration preserved the original composition of nuclease-protected viral genomes, low-force centrifugation and 0.22 μm filtration removed large viruses. Comparison of unamplified and randomly amplified saliva viromes revealed that multiple displacement amplification (MDA) induced stochastic bias from picograms of DNA template. However, the type of bias shifted to systematic using 1 ng, with only a marginal influence by amplification time. Systematic bias consisted of over-amplification of small circular genomes, and under-amplification of those with extreme GC content, a negative bias that was shared with the PCR-based sequence-independent, single-primer amplification (SISPA) method. MDA based on random priming provided by a DNA primase activity slightly outperformed those based on random hexamers and SISPA, which may reflect differences in ability to handle sequences with extreme GC content. SISPA viromes showed uneven coverage profiles, with high coverage peaks in regions with low linguistic sequence complexity. Despite misrepresentation of certain viruses after random amplification, ordination plots based on dissimilarities among contig profiles showed perfect overlapping of related amplified and unamplified saliva viromes and strong separation from unrelated saliva viromes. This result suggests that random amplification bias has a minor impact on beta diversity studies.

conclusionsBenchmark analyses of mock and natural communities of viruses improve understanding and mitigate bias in metagenomics surveys. Bias induced by random amplification methods has only a minor impact on beta diversity studies of human saliva viromes.

Indexed as

MetagenomicsBase CompositionDNA VirusesGenetic MarkersGenome, ViralHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMetagenomeMicrobiotaNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesPolymerase Chain ReactionSalivaGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID29954453
PMCPMC6022446

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.