ArticlemSystems2021
Evaluation of the Effects of Library Preparation Procedure and Sample Characteristics on the Accuracy of Metagenomic Profiles.
Article in mSystems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative metagenomic assessment of Illumina-compatible library preparation methods, short-read lengths, and PacBio HiFi sequencing reveals differences in microbial and functional diversity recovery from a complex environmental sample.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Bioactive molecules unearthed by terabase-scale long-read sequencing of a soil metagenome.Nature biotechnology · 2026Article
- Substrate-Driven Microbiome Assembly in Water Hyacinth Vermicompost: Combined 16S rRNA and Shotgun Metagenomics for Sustainable Agriculture.Journal of basic microbiology · 2026Article
- Development of a Metagenomics-Guided Personalized Synbiotic Protocol for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: An Exploratory Case Series.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Benchmarking of shotgun sequencing depth reveals the potential and limitations of shallow metagenomics and strain-level analysis.Nature microbiology · 2026Article
- Bacterial Siderophore Production in Metal-Rich Environments: Underexplored Sources of Siderophores and Insights into Bioremediation.Journal of natural products · 2026Review
- Planning and Analyzing a Low-Biomass Microbiome Study: A Data Analysis Perspective.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2026Review
- Bioinformatic Methodologies in Assessing Gut Microbiota.Microbiology research · 2024Article
- Enhancing insights into diseases through horizontal gene transfer event detection from gut microbiome.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
- Unveiling microbial diversity: harnessing long-read sequencing technology.Nature methods · 2024Review
- Hackflex library preparation enables low-cost metagenomic profiling.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Enhancing Clinical Utility: Utilization of International Standards and Guidelines for Metagenomic Sequencing in Infectious Disease Diagnosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Quantifying bias introduced by sample collection in relative and absolute microbiome measurements.Nature biotechnology · 2024Article
- Hackflex library preparation enables low-cost metagenomic profiling.ISME communications · 2024Article
- Expressions of resistome is linked to the key functions and stability of active rumen microbiome.Animal microbiome · 2022Article
- MAGs achieve lineage resolution.Nature microbiology · 2022Article
- Evaluating supervised and unsupervised background noise correction in human gut microbiome data.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Shotgun metagenomic sequencing has transformed our understanding of microbial community ecology. However, preparing metagenomic libraries for high-throughput DNA sequencing remains a costly, labor-intensive, and time-consuming procedure, which in turn limits the utility of metagenomes. Several library preparation procedures have recently been developed to offset these costs, but it is unclear how these newer procedures compare to current standards in the field. In particular, it is not clear if all such procedures perform equally well across different types of microbial communities or if features of the biological samples being processed (e.g., DNA amount) impact the accuracy of the approach. To address these questions, we assessed how five different shotgun DNA sequence library preparation methods, including the commonly used Nextera Flex kit, perform when applied to metagenomic DNA. We measured each method's ability to produce metagenomic data that accurately represent the underlying taxonomic and genetic diversity of the community. We performed these analyses across a range of microbial community types (e.g., soil, coral associated, and mouse gut associated) and input DNA amounts. We find that the type of community and amount of input DNA influence each method's performance, indicating that careful consideration may be needed when selecting between methods, especially for low-complexity communities. However, the cost-effective preparation methods that we assessed are generally comparable to the current gold-standard Nextera DNA Flex kit for high-complexity communities. Overall, the results from this analysis will help expand and even facilitate access to metagenomic approaches in future 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.