Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32546984›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics and biology insights2020

Comparative Analysis of Sample Extraction and Library Construction for Shotgun Metagenomics.

Zonghui Peng, Xiaolong Zhu, Zhijiao Wang, Xianting Yan, Guangbiao Wang, Meifang Tang, Awei Jiang, Karsten Kristiansen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics and biology insights, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Analysis of metagenomic data.Nature reviews. Methods primers · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors.

Zonghui PengBGI Americas Corporation, Cambridge, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5735-1563
Xiaolong ZhuBGI Genomics, Shenzhen, China.
Zhijiao WangBGI Genomics, Shenzhen, China.
Xianting YanBGI Genomics, Shenzhen, China.
Guangbiao WangBGI Tech Solutions, Hong Kong, China.
Meifang TangBGI Genomics, Shenzhen, China.
Awei JiangBGI Genomics, Shenzhen, China.
Karsten KristiansenDepartment of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human fecal specimens, serve as important materials, are widely used in the field of microbiome research, in which inconsistent results have been a pressing issue. The possible attribute factors have been proposed including the specimen status after preservation, extracted DNA quality, library preparation protocol, and sample DNA input. In this study, quality comparisons for shotgun metagenomics sequencing were performed between 2 DNA extraction methods for fresh and freeze-thaw samples, 2 library preparation protocols, and various sample inputs. The results indicate that Mag-Bind® Universal Metagenomics Kit (OM) outperformed DNeasy PowerSoil Kit (QP) with a higher DNA quantity. Controlling on library preparation protocol, OM detected on-average more genes than QP. For library construction comparison by controlling on the same DNA sample, KAPA Hyper Prep Kit (KH) outperformed the TruePrep DNA Library Prep Kit V2 (TP) with the higher number of detected genes number and Shannon index. No significant differences were found in taxonomy between 2 library preparation protocols using the fresh, freeze-thaw and mock community samples. No significant difference was observed between 250 and 50 ng DNA inputs for library preparation on both fresh and freeze-thaw samples. Through the preliminary study, a combined protocol is recommended for performing metagenomics studies, by using OM method plus KH protocol as well as suitable DNA quantity on either fresh or freeze-thaw samples. Our findings provide clues for potential variations from various DNA extraction methods, library protocols, and sample DNA inputs, which are critical for consistent and comprehensive profiling of the human gut microbiome.

Indexed as

DNA isolation methodlibrary preparation protocolMetagenomicssample inputsample preservation

Identifiers

PMID32546984
PMCPMC7271268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.