Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34012005›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

An inter-laboratory study to investigate the impact of the bioinformatics component on microbiome analysis using mock communities.

Denise M O'Sullivan, Ronan M Doyle, Sasithon Temisak, Nicholas Redshaw, Alexandra S Whale, Grace Logan, Jiabin Huang, Nicole Fischer, Gregory C A Amos, Mark D Preston and 18 more

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

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

28 authors.

Denise M O'SullivanMolecular Biology, National Measurement Laboratory, LGC, Queens Road, Teddington, TW11 0LY, Middlesex, UK. denise.osullivan@lgcgroup.com.
Ronan M DoyleDepartment of Microbiology, Virology and Infection Control, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, Great Ormond Street, London, WC1N 3JH, UK.
Sasithon TemisakMolecular Biology, National Measurement Laboratory, LGC, Queens Road, Teddington, TW11 0LY, Middlesex, UK.
Nicholas RedshawMolecular Biology, National Measurement Laboratory, LGC, Queens Road, Teddington, TW11 0LY, Middlesex, UK.
Alexandra S WhaleMolecular Biology, National Measurement Laboratory, LGC, Queens Road, Teddington, TW11 0LY, Middlesex, UK.
Grace LoganDepartment of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health and Reubens Centre of Paediatric Virology and Metagenomics, 30 Guildford Street, London, WC1N EH, UK.
Jiabin HuangInstitute of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, UKE, Martinstraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Nicole FischerInstitute of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, UKE, Martinstraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Gregory C A AmosDepartment of Bacteriology, TDI, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, South Mimms, EN6 3QG, UK.
Mark D PrestonDepartment of Bacteriology, TDI, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, South Mimms, EN6 3QG, UK.
Julian R MarchesiSchool of Biosciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF10 3AX, UK.
Josef WagnerPathogens and Microbes, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SA, UK.
Julian ParkhillPathogens and Microbes, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SA, UK.
Yair MotroDepartment of Health System Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Negev, Israel.
Hubert DeniseEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK.
Robert D FinnEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK.
Kathryn A HarrisDepartment of Microbiology, Virology and Infection Control, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, Great Ormond Street, London, WC1N 3JH, UK.
Gemma L KayMedical Microbiology Research Laboratory, Bob Champion Research and Educational Building, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7UQ, UK.
Justin O'GradyMedical Microbiology Research Laboratory, Bob Champion Research and Educational Building, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7UQ, UK.
Emma Ransom-JonesDepartment of Biological and Geographical Sciences, School of Applied Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, HD1 3DH, UK.
Huihai WuSchool of Biosciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, UK.
Emma LaingSchool of Biosciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, UK.
David J StudholmeBiosciences, University of Exeter, Stocker Road, Exeter, EX4 4QD, UK.
Ernest Diez BenaventeFaculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Jody PhelanFaculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Taane G ClarkFaculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Jacob Moran-GiladDepartment of Health System Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Negev, Israel.
Jim F HuggettMolecular Biology, National Measurement Laboratory, LGC, Queens Road, Teddington, TW11 0LY, Middlesex, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/R012504/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/R013063/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/F/000PR10348Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/F/000PR10349Medical Research Council MR/L015080/1Medical Research Council MR/M01360X/1Medical Research Council MR/N010469/1Medical Research Council MR/N013956/1Medical Research Council MR/R020973/1MRC UK MR/K000551/1MRC UK MR/M01360X/1MRC UK MR/N010469/1MRC UK MR/R020973/1UK Antimicrobial Resistance Cross Council Initiative MR/N013956/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the advent of whole genome metagenomics, targeted approaches (such as 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing) continue to be valuable for determining the microbial composition of samples. Amplicon microbiome sequencing can be performed on clinical samples from a normally sterile site to determine the aetiology of an infection (usually single pathogen identification) or samples from more complex niches such as human mucosa or environmental samples where multiple microorganisms need to be identified. The methodologies are frequently applied to determine both presence of micro-organisms and their quantity or relative abundance. There are a number of technical steps required to perform microbial community profiling, many of which may have appreciable precision and bias that impacts final results. In order for these methods to be applied with the greatest accuracy, comparative studies across different laboratories are warranted. In this study we explored the impact of the bioinformatic approaches taken in different laboratories on microbiome assessment using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing results. Data were generated from two mock microbial community samples which were amplified using primer sets spanning five different variable regions of 16S rRNA genes. The PCR-sequencing analysis included three technical repeats of the process to determine the repeatability of their methods. Thirteen laboratories participated in the study, and each analysed the same FASTQ files using their choice of pipeline. This study captured the methods used and the resulting sequence annotation and relative abundance output from bioinformatic analyses. Results were compared to digital PCR assessment of the absolute abundance of each target representing each organism in the mock microbial community samples and also to analyses of shotgun metagenome sequence data. This ring trial demonstrates that the choice of bioinformatic analysis pipeline alone can result in different estimations of the composition of the microbiome when using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing data. The study observed differences in terms of both presence and abundance of organisms and provides a resource for ensuring reproducible pipeline development and application. The observed differences were especially prevalent when using custom databases and applying high stringency operational taxonomic unit (OTU) cut-off limits. In order to apply sequencing approaches with greater accuracy, the impact of different analytical steps needs to be clearly delineated and solutions devised to harmonise microbiome analysis results.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyMetagenomicsMicrobiotaRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSequence Analysis, DNARNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID34012005
PMCPMC8134577

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.