ArticleScientific reports2021
An inter-laboratory study to investigate the impact of the bioinformatics component on microbiome analysis using mock communities.
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.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of library preparation protocols and bioinformatic pipelines in high-throughput 16S rRNA gene sequencing.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- NAP: an open source pipeline for cross-domain microbiome profiling using Nanopore sequencing-derived amplicon data.BMC bioinformatics · 2026Article
- LEMMIv2: benchmarking framework for metagenomic and 16S amplicon profilers with a catalogue of evaluated tools.Genome biology · 2026Article
- Review
- Evaluating the analytical performance of direct-to-consumer gut microbiome testing services.Communications biology · 2026Article
- BLIT: an R package for seamless integration of command-line bioinformatics tool universe.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
- Do we need a standardized 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing analysis protocol for poultry microbiota research?Poultry science · 2025Review
- Assessing the safety of microbiome perturbations.Microbial genomics · 2025Review
- Standardization of 16S rRNA gene sequencing using nanopore long read sequencing technology for clinical diagnosis of culture negative infections.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of DNA extraction kits for long-read shotgun metagenomics using Oxford Nanopore sequencing for rapid taxonomic and antimicrobial resistance detection.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- An interlaboratory proficiency test using metagenomic sequencing as a diagnostic tool for the detection of RNA viruses in swine fecal material.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Measurements of soil protist richness and community composition are influenced by primer pair, annealing temperature, and bioinformatics choices.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2024Article
- Using 16s rRNA sequencing to characterize the microbiome of tropical cutaneous ulcer disease: insights into the microbial landscape and implications for diagnosis and treatment.Microbial genomics · 2024Article
- Variability and bias in microbiome metagenomic sequencing: an interlaboratory study comparing experimental protocols.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Gut microbiota in cats with inflammatory bowel disease and low-grade intestinal T-cell lymphoma.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Review
- Establishing the ELIXIR Microbiome Community.F1000Research · 2024Article
- Multicenter evaluation of gut microbiome profiling by next-generation sequencing reveals major biases in partial-length metabarcoding approach.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Similarity in milk microbiota in replicates.MicrobiologyOpen · 2023Article
- MinION Sequencing of Yeast Mock Communities To Assess the Effect of Databases and ITS-LSU Markers on the Reliability of Metabarcoding Analysis.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- Reducing bias in microbiome research: Comparing methods from sample collection to sequencing.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
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
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.