Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34636674›Full record

ArticlemSystems2021

Evaluation of the Effects of Library Preparation Procedure and Sample Characteristics on the Accuracy of Metagenomic Profiles.

Christopher A Gaulke, Emily R Schmeltzer, Mark Dasenko, Brett M Tyler, Rebecca Vega Thurber, Thomas J Sharpton

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Hackflex library preparation enables low-cost metagenomic profiling.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. MAGs achieve lineage resolution.Nature microbiology · 2022
    Article
  17. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christopher A Gaulke *Department of Microbiology, Oregon State Universitygrid.4391.f, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7741-7822
Emily R Schmeltzer *Department of Microbiology, Oregon State Universitygrid.4391.f, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5390-4308
Mark DasenkoCenter for Quantitative Life Sciences, Oregon State Universitygrid.4391.f, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
Brett M TylerCenter for Quantitative Life Sciences, Oregon State Universitygrid.4391.f, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
Rebecca Vega ThurberDepartment of Microbiology, Oregon State Universitygrid.4391.f, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
Thomas J SharptonDepartment of Microbiology, Oregon State Universitygrid.4391.f, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
Oregon State University · US

Funding

Impacts of Benzo[a]pyrene on Microbiome Development across Lifespan and Generations and the Behavioral ConsequencesR01ES030226 · NIEHS · OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY · PI SHARPTON, THOMAS JEFFERSON · 2019 to 2023
$2.1M
Interactions between Gut Microbiome Natural Products and Intestinal HelminthsR21AI135641 · NIAID · OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY · PI KENT, MICHAEL LAWRENCE, SHARPTON, THOMAS JEFFERSON · 2018 to 2019
$404k
HHS | NIH | National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) R21AI135641HHS | NIH | National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) R01ES030226National Science Foundation (NSF) BIO-2025457National Science Foundation (NSF) OCE-1635913NIAID NIH HHS R21 AI135641NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES030226
6 · The paper itself

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

coralgutlibrary preparationmetagenomicsmicrobiomenext-generation sequencingsoil

Identifiers

PMID34636674
PMCPMC8510527
OpenAlexW3206629621

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.