ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2020
Database limitations for studying the human gut microbiome.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meat Consumption and Gut Microbiota: a Scoping Review of Literature and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials in Adults.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2023Pooled it
- Weather conditions structure the taxonomic and functional diversity of the aeolian dust microbiome.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Review
- Comprehensive analysis of orthologous genes reveals functional dynamics and energy metabolism in the rhizospheric microbiome of Moringa oleifera.Functional & integrative genomics · 2025Article
- Gut Microbiome and Cardiovascular Health: Mechanisms, Therapeutic Potential and Future Directions.Heart international · 2025Review
- Advanced computational tools, artificial intelligence and machine-learning approaches in gut microbiota and biomarker identification.Frontiers in medical technology · 2024Review
- Human Gut Microbiota in Heart Failure: Trying to Unmask an Emerging Organ.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Review
- Crosstalk between Gut Microbiota and Host Immunity: Impact on Inflammation and Immunotherapy.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- The Gut Microbiome and Its Implication in the Mucosal Digestive Disorders.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- Ecosystem-specific microbiota and microbiome databases in the era of big data.Environmental microbiome · 2022Review
- Inflammation-driven brain and gut barrier dysfunction in stress and mood disorders.The European journal of neuroscience · 2022Review
- Metaomics in Clinical Laboratory: Potential Driving Force for Innovative Disease Diagnosis.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the last twenty years, new methodologies have made possible the gathering of large amounts of data concerning the genetic information and metabolic functions associated to the human gut microbiome. In spite of that, processing all this data available might not be the simplest of tasks, which could result in an excess of information awaiting proper annotation. This assessment intended on evaluating how well respected databases could describe a mock human gut microbiome.
methodsIn this work, we critically evaluate the output of the cross-reference between the Uniprot Knowledge Base (Uniprot KB) and the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes Orthologs (KEGG Orthologs) or the evolutionary genealogy of genes: Non-supervised Orthologous groups (EggNOG) databases regarding a list of species that were previously found in the human gut microbiome.
resultsFrom a list which contemplates 131 species and 52 genera, 53 species and 40 genera had corresponding entries for KEGG Database and 82 species and 47 genera had corresponding entries for EggNOG Database. Moreover, we present the KEGG Orthologs (KOs) and EggNOG Orthologs (NOGs) entries associated to the search as their distribution over species and genera and lists of functions that appeared in many species or genera, the "core" functions of the human gut microbiome. We also present the relative abundance of KOs and NOGs throughout phyla and genera. Lastly, we expose a variance found between searches with different arguments on the database entries. Inferring functionality based on cross-referencing UniProt and KEGG or EggNOG can be lackluster due to the low number of annotated species in Uniprot and due to the lower number of functions affiliated to the majority of these species. Additionally, the EggNOG database showed greater performance for a cross-search with Uniprot about a mock human gut microbiome. Notwithstanding, efforts targeting cultivation, single-cell sequencing or the reconstruction of high-quality metagenome-assembled genomes (MAG) and their annotation are needed to allow the use of these databases for inferring functionality in human gut microbiome studies.
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.