Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33193131›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2020

Interpretations of Environmental Microbial Community Studies Are Biased by the Selected 16S rRNA (Gene) Amplicon Sequencing Pipeline.

Daniel Straub, Nia Blackwell, Adrian Langarica-Fuentes, Alexander Peltzer, Sven Nahnsen, Sara Kleindienst

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 182 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
182citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

182 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

122 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

6 authors.

Daniel StraubMicrobial Ecology, Center for Applied Geoscience, Department of Geosciences, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Nia BlackwellMicrobial Ecology, Center for Applied Geoscience, Department of Geosciences, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Adrian Langarica-FuentesMicrobial Ecology, Center for Applied Geoscience, Department of Geosciences, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Alexander PeltzerQuantitative Biology Center (QBiC), University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Sven NahnsenQuantitative Biology Center (QBiC), University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Sara KleindienstMicrobial Ecology, Center for Applied Geoscience, Department of Geosciences, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the major methods to identify microbial community composition, to unravel microbial population dynamics, and to explore microbial diversity in environmental samples is high-throughput DNA- or RNA-based 16S rRNA (gene) amplicon sequencing in combination with bioinformatics analyses. However, focusing on environmental samples from contrasting habitats, it was not systematically evaluated (i) which analysis methods provide results that reflect reality most accurately, (ii) how the interpretations of microbial community studies are biased by different analysis methods and (iii) if the most optimal analysis workflow can be implemented in an easy-to-use pipeline. Here, we compared the performance of 16S rRNA (gene) amplicon sequencing analysis tools (i.e., Mothur, QIIME1, QIIME2, and MEGAN) using three mock datasets with known microbial community composition that differed in sequencing quality, species number and abundance distribution (i.e., even or uneven), and phylogenetic diversity (i.e., closely related or well-separated amplicon sequences). Our results showed that QIIME2 outcompeted all other investigated tools in sequence recovery (>10 times fewer false positives), taxonomic assignments (>22% better F-score) and diversity estimates (>5% better assessment), suggesting that this approach is able to reflect the

Indexed as

16S rRNAamplicon sequencingbioinformaticsenvironmental samplesnf-core/ampliseq

Identifiers

PMID33193131
PMCPMC7645116

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.