Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32397992›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2020

Optimizing 16S rRNA gene profile analysis from low biomass nasopharyngeal and induced sputum specimens.

Shantelle Claassen-Weitz, Sugnet Gardner-Lubbe, Kilaza S Mwaikono, Elloise du Toit, Heather J Zar, Mark P Nicol

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Characterization ofMicrobial genomics · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Nasopharyngeal Microbiota in South African Infants With Lower Respiratory Tract Infection: A Nested Case-Control Study of the Drakenstein Child Health Study.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Differences in cell-associated and cell-free microbial DNA in blood.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Sample Collection Methods in Upper Gastrointestinal Research.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors.

Shantelle Claassen-WeitzDivision of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. tellafiela@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-2175-3776
Sugnet Gardner-LubbeDepartment of Statistics and Actuarial Science, Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Kilaza S MwaikonoComputational Biology Group and H3ABioNet, Department of Integrative Biomedical Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Elloise du ToitDivision of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Heather J ZarDepartment of Paediatrics and Child Health, Red Cross War Memorial Children's Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.
Mark P NicolDivision of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.

Funding

The nasopharyngeal microbiota of African children and lower respiratory tract infectionU54HG009824 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN · PI NICOL, MARK PATRICK · 2017 to 2021
$2.9M
The nasopharyngeal microbiome and respiratory disease in African childrenU01AI110466 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN · PI NICOL, MARK PATRICK, ZAR, HEATHER JOY · 2013 to 2016
$1.4M
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation OPP1017579Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation OPP1017641NHGRI NIH HHS U54 HG009824NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI110466
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCareful consideration of experimental artefacts is required in order to successfully apply high-throughput 16S ribosomal ribonucleic acid (rRNA) gene sequencing technology. Here we introduce experimental design, quality control and "denoising" approaches for sequencing low biomass specimens.

resultsWe found that bacterial biomass is a key driver of 16S rRNA gene sequencing profiles generated from bacterial mock communities and that the use of different deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) extraction methods [DSP Virus/Pathogen Mini Kit® (Kit-QS) and ZymoBIOMICS DNA Miniprep Kit (Kit-ZB)] and storage buffers [PrimeStore® Molecular Transport medium (Primestore) and Skim-milk, Tryptone, Glucose and Glycerol (STGG)] further influence these profiles. Kit-QS better represented hard-to-lyse bacteria from bacterial mock communities compared to Kit-ZB. Primestore storage buffer yielded lower levels of background operational taxonomic units (OTUs) from low biomass bacterial mock community controls compared to STGG. In addition to bacterial mock community controls, we used technical repeats (nasopharyngeal and induced sputum processed in duplicate, triplicate or quadruplicate) to further evaluate the effect of specimen biomass and participant age at specimen collection on resultant sequencing profiles. We observed a positive correlation (r = 0.16) between specimen biomass and participant age at specimen collection: low biomass technical repeats (represented by < 500 16S rRNA gene copies/μl) were primarily collected at < 14 days of age. We found that low biomass technical repeats also produced higher alpha diversities (r = - 0.28); 16S rRNA gene profiles similar to no template controls (Primestore); and reduced sequencing reproducibility. Finally, we show that the use of statistical tools for in silico contaminant identification, as implemented through the decontam package in R, provides better representations of indigenous bacteria following decontamination.

conclusionsWe provide insight into experimental design, quality control steps and "denoising" approaches for 16S rRNA gene high-throughput sequencing of low biomass specimens. We highlight the need for careful assessment of DNA extraction methods and storage buffers; sequence quality and reproducibility; and in silico identification of contaminant profiles in order to avoid spurious results.

Indexed as

BacteriaBiomassComputer SimulationDNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalGene DosageHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansInfant, NewbornNasopharynxRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSequence Analysis, DNASpecimen HandlingSputumDNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalRNA, Ribosomal, 16S16S rRNA geneBacteriomeContaminationHigh-throughput sequencingLow biomassMock controlsNegative controlsOptimizationReproducibilityRespiratory

Identifiers

PMID32397992
PMCPMC7218582

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.