ArticleMicrobiome2020
Developing standards for the microbiome field.
Article in Microbiome, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
79 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Impact of non-standardized reporting on reproducibility, usability, and integration in nasopharyngeal metagenomic research: a systematic review.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Pooled it
- Unboxing the black box-one step forward to understand the soil microbiome: A systematic review.Microbial ecology · 2023Pooled it
- Urbanization gradient, diet, and gut microbiota in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review.Frontiers in microbiomes · 2023Pooled it
- The Potential Role of Clinical Metagenomics in Infectious Diseases: Therapeutic Perspectives.Drugs · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Effects of a prebiotic formulation on the composition of the faecal microbiota of people with functional constipation.European journal of nutrition · 2024Trial
- Beyond the gut microbe: Rethinking infection, microbiome harmony, and the one-health continuum.World journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Multidisciplinary Delphi consensus statement on minimal standards for clinical metadata and end points in microbiome studies.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026Review
- Article
- Identify contaminants with decontam on the QIIME 2 Framework.Microbiology resource announcements · 2026Article
- Phages for One Health: regulatory and product life cycle considerations.Microbiology (Reading, England) · 2026Review
- Review
- Fungal ecology in the age of 'omics.The New phytologist · 2026Review
- Evaluating the analytical performance of direct-to-consumer gut microbiome testing services.Communications biology · 2026Article
- The gut microbiome in colorectal cancer: molecular paradigms and translational frontiers.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Gut microbiome in sepsis: from dysbiotic biomarker to precision and palliative decision-making.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Fecal Sample Collection for Gut Microbiome Research in a Prospective Cohort: A Pilot Study within the Australian Breakthrough Cancer Study.Cancer research communications · 2026Article
- Exercise prescription for mood and cognition: targeting the microbiota-gut-brain axis through short-chain fatty acids.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- High-resolution microbiome analysis of host-rich samples using 2bRAD-M without host depletion.NPJ biofilms and microbiomes · 2025Article
- DNA reference reagents isolate biases in microbiome profiling: a global multi-lab study.mSystems · 2025Article
19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEffective standardisation of methodologies to analyse the microbiome is essential to the entire microbiome community. Despite the microbiome field being established for over a decade, there are no accredited or certified reference materials available to the wider community. In this study, we describe the development of the first reference reagents produced by the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) for microbiome analysis by next-generation sequencing. These can act as global working standards and will be evaluated as candidate World Health Organization International Reference Reagents.
resultsWe developed the NIBSC DNA reference reagents Gut-Mix-RR and Gut-HiLo-RR and a four-measure framework for evaluation of bioinformatics tool and pipeline bias. Using these reagents and reporting system, we performed an independent evaluation of a variety of bioinformatics tools by analysing shotgun sequencing and 16S rRNA sequencing data generated from the Gut-Mix-RR and Gut-HiLo-RR. We demonstrate that key measures of microbiome health, such as diversity estimates, are largely inflated by the majority of bioinformatics tools. Across all tested tools, biases were present, with a clear trade-off occurring between sensitivity and the relative abundance of false positives in the final dataset. Using commercially available mock communities, we investigated how the composition of reference reagents may impact benchmarking studies. Reporting measures consistently changed when the same bioinformatics tools were used on different community compositions. This was influenced by both community complexity and taxonomy of species present. Both NIBSC reference reagents, which consisted of gut commensal species, proved to be the most challenging for the majority of bioinformatics tools tested. Going forward, we recommend the field uses site-specific reagents of a high complexity to ensure pipeline benchmarking is fit for purpose.
conclusionsIf a consensus of acceptable levels of error can be agreed on, widespread adoption of these reference reagents will standardise downstream gut microbiome analyses. We propose to do this through a large open-invite collaborative study for multiple laboratories in 2020. Video Abstract.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.