ArticleBMC bioinformatics2022
Beware to ignore the rare: how imputing zero-values can improve the quality of 16S rRNA gene studies results.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- N2SIMBA: from Network topology to SIMulation of interactions and BActerial abundance, using microbial consumer resource model.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Emergent ecological patterns and modelling of gut microbiomes in health and in disease.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Machine learning-based feature selection to search stable microbial biomarkers: application to inflammatory bowel disease.GigaScience · 2022Article
- Investigating differential abundance methods in microbiome data: A benchmark study.PLoS computational biology · 2022Review
- The Interplay between Campylobacter and the Caecal Microbial Community of Commercial Broiler Chickens over Time.Microorganisms · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background16S rRNA-gene sequencing is a valuable approach to characterize the taxonomic content of the whole bacterial population inhabiting a metabolic and spatial niche, providing an important opportunity to study bacteria and their role in many health and environmental mechanisms. The analysis of data produced by amplicon sequencing, however, brings very specific methodological issues that need to be properly addressed to obtain reliable biological conclusions. Among these, 16S count data tend to be very sparse, with many null values reflecting species that are present but got unobserved due to the multiplexing constraints. However, current data workflows do not consider a step in which the information about unobserved species is recovered.
resultsIn this work, we evaluate for the first time the effects of introducing in the 16S data workflow a new preprocessing step, zero-imputation, to recover this lost information. Due to the lack of published zero-imputation methods specifically designed for 16S count data, we considered a set of zero-imputation strategies available for other frameworks, and benchmarked them using in silico 16S count data reflecting different experimental designs. Additionally, we assessed the effect of combining zero-imputation and normalization, i.e. the only preprocessing step in current 16S workflow. Overall, we benchmarked 35 16S preprocessing pipelines assessing their ability to handle data sparsity, identify species presence/absence, recovery sample proportional abundance distributions, and improve typical downstream analyses such as computation of alpha and beta diversity indices and differential abundance analysis.
conclusionsThe results clearly show that 16S data analysis greatly benefits from a properly-performed zero-imputation step, despite the choice of the right zero-imputation method having a pivotal role. In addition, we identify a set of best-performing pipelines that could be a valuable indication for data analysts.
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.