Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32591016›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2020

Developing standards for the microbiome field.

Gregory C A Amos, Alastair Logan, Saba Anwar, Martin Fritzsche, Ryan Mate, Thomas Bleazard, Sjoerd Rijpkema

Abstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Beyond the gut microbe: Rethinking infection, microbiome harmony, and the one-health continuum.World journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Identify contaminants with decontam on the QIIME 2 Framework.Microbiology resource announcements · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Fungal ecology in the age of 'omics.The New phytologist · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

19 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

7 authors.

Gregory C A AmosDivision of Bacteriology, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Blanche Lane, South Mimms, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, EN6 3QG, UK. Gregory.Amos@NIBSC.org.ORCID 0000-0001-9748-1813
Alastair LoganDivision of Bacteriology, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Blanche Lane, South Mimms, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, EN6 3QG, UK.
Saba AnwarDivision of Bacteriology, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Blanche Lane, South Mimms, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, EN6 3QG, UK.
Martin FritzscheDivision of Analytical and Biological Sciences, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, EN6 3QG, UK.
Ryan MateDivision of Analytical and Biological Sciences, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, EN6 3QG, UK.
Thomas BleazardDivision of Analytical and Biological Sciences, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, EN6 3QG, UK.
Sjoerd RijpkemaDivision of Bacteriology, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Blanche Lane, South Mimms, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, EN6 3QG, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

GenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMetagenomeMicrobiotaReference StandardsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID32591016
PMCPMC7320585

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.