Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35302439›Full record

ArticleMicrobial genomics2022

Finding the right fit: evaluation of short-read and long-read sequencing approaches to maximize the utility of clinical microbiome data.

Jeanette L Gehrig, Daniel M Portik, Mark D Driscoll, Eric Jackson, Shreyasee Chakraborty, Dawn Gratalo, Meredith Ashby, Ricardo Valladares

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbial genomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing 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

53 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Microbial genomics · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. PeerJ · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Comparative metagenomics using pan-metagenomic graphs.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  15. Strain-level differences inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  16. High-resolution metagenome assembly for modern long reads with myloasm.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    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

8 authors.

Jeanette L GehrigSiolta Therapeutics, 930 Brittan Ave, San Carlos, CA 94070, USA.
Daniel M PortikPacific Biosciences, 1305 O'Brien Dr, Menlo Park, CA 93025, USA.
Mark D DriscollShoreline Biome, 400 Farmington Ave, Farmington, CT 06032, USA.
Eric JacksonShoreline Biome, 400 Farmington Ave, Farmington, CT 06032, USA.
Shreyasee ChakrabortyPacific Biosciences, 1305 O'Brien Dr, Menlo Park, CA 93025, USA.
Dawn GrataloShoreline Biome, 400 Farmington Ave, Farmington, CT 06032, USA.
Meredith AshbyPacific Biosciences, 1305 O'Brien Dr, Menlo Park, CA 93025, USA.
Ricardo ValladaresSiolta Therapeutics, 930 Brittan Ave, San Carlos, CA 94070, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A long-standing challenge in human microbiome research is achieving the taxonomic and functional resolution needed to generate testable hypotheses about the gut microbiota's impact on health and disease. With a growing number of live microbial interventions in clinical development, this challenge is renewed by a need to understand the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of therapeutic candidates. While short-read sequencing of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene has been the standard for microbiota profiling, recent improvements in the fidelity of long-read sequencing underscores the need for a re-evaluation of the value of distinct microbiome-sequencing approaches. We leveraged samples from participants enrolled in a phase 1b clinical trial of a novel live biotherapeutic product to perform a comparative analysis of short-read and long-read amplicon and metagenomic sequencing approaches to assess their utility for generating clinical microbiome data. Across all methods, overall community taxonomic profiles were comparable and relationships between samples were conserved. Comparison of ubiquitous short-read 16S rRNA amplicon profiling to long-read profiling of the 16S-ITS-23S rRNA amplicon showed that only the latter provided strain-level community resolution and insight into novel taxa. All methods identified an active ingredient strain in treated study participants, though detection confidence was higher for long-read methods. Read coverage from both metagenomic methods provided evidence of active-ingredient strain replication in some treated participants. Compared to short-read metagenomics, approximately twice the proportion of long reads were assigned functional annotations. Finally, compositionally similar bacterial metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) were recovered from short-read and long-read metagenomic methods, although a greater number and more complete MAGs were recovered from long reads. Despite higher costs, both amplicon and metagenomic long-read approaches yielded added microbiome data value in the form of higher confidence taxonomic and functional resolution and improved recovery of microbial genomes compared to traditional short-read methodologies.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaHumansMetagenomeMetagenomicsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSequence Analysis, DNARNA, Ribosomal, 16S16S rRNA sequencinglive biotherapeutic productlong-read sequencingmetagenomicsmicrobiomenext-generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID35302439
PMCPMC9176275

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.