ArticleGenes2020
Comparison of Illumina versus Nanopore 16S rRNA Gene Sequencing of the Human Nasal Microbiota.
Article in Genes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers.
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
65 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sea Lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) Harbour Putative Fish Pathogens: Insights From Illumina and Nanopore Sequencing.Journal of fish diseases · 2026Article
- A scalable and cost-effective nanopore workflow for 16S rRNA microbiome profiling validated in a zebrafish gut model.Microbial genomics · 2026Article
- Article
- Choosing Between Short-Read 16S, Full-Length ONT 16S, and Long-Read Shotgun Metagenomics for Soil Microbiome Studies: A Critical Review of the Benchmarking Evidence.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Nutrient enrichment and connectivity jointly shape bacterioplankton taxonomic and functional diversity.FEMS microbiology letters · 2026Article
- Significant impact of threshold adjustments on microbiome characterization following Nanopore sequencing.ISME communications · 2026Article
- Microbial dynamics in gastric cancer: insights from full-length 16S rRNA nanopore sequencing in the MAGIC cohort.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Profiling of vaginal microbial communities in Chilean women via self-sampling and nanopore sequencing.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- How sequencing technology shapes our understanding of river water microbiomes and resistomes: a comparative study.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2025Article
- Comparative Meta-Analysis of Long-Read and Short-Read Sequencing for Metagenomic Profiling of the Lower Respiratory Tract Infections.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- A Practical Comparison of Short- and Long-Read Metabarcoding Sequencing: Challenges and Solutions for Plastid Read Removal and Microbial Community Exploration of Seaweed Samples.Molecular ecology resources · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of illumina and oxford nanopore sequencing platforms for 16S rRNA profiling of respiratory microbial communities.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Nanopore 16S-Full Length and ITS Sequencing for Microbiota Identification in Intra-Abdominal Infections.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Evaluation of V3-V4 and FL-16S rRNA amplicon sequencing approach for microbiota community analysis of tracheostomy aspirates.mSphere · 2025Article
- Do we need a standardized 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing analysis protocol for poultry microbiota research?Poultry science · 2025Review
- Evaluation of long-read 16S rRNA next-generation sequencing for identification of bacterial isolates in a clinical diagnostic laboratory.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Pike: OTU-Level Analysis for Oxford Nanopore Amplicon Metagenomics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- A long-read sequencing approach to high-resolution profiling of bacterioplankton diversity in a shallow freshwater lake.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
5 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Illumina and nanopore sequencing technologies are powerful tools that can be used to determine the bacterial composition of complex microbial communities. In this study, we compared nasal microbiota results at genus level using both Illumina and nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing. We also monitored the progression of nanopore sequencing in the accurate identification of species, using pure, single species cultures, and evaluated the performance of the nanopore EPI2ME 16S data analysis pipeline. Fifty-nine nasal swabs were sequenced using Illumina MiSeq and Oxford Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing technologies. In addition, five pure cultures of relevant bacterial species were sequenced with the nanopore sequencing technology. The Illumina MiSeq sequence data were processed using bioinformatics modules present in the Mothur software package. Albacore and Guppy base calling, a workflow in nanopore EPI2ME (Oxford Nanopore Technologies-ONT, Oxford, UK) and an in-house developed bioinformatics script were used to analyze the nanopore data. At genus level, similar bacterial diversity profiles were found, and five main and established genera were identified by both platforms. However, probably due to mismatching of the nanopore sequence primers, the nanopore sequencing platform identified
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.