Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35589762›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

The standardisation of the approach to metagenomic human gut analysis: from sample collection to microbiome profiling.

Natalia Szóstak, Agata Szymanek, Jan Havránek, Katarzyna Tomela, Magdalena Rakoczy, Anna Samelak-Czajka, Marcin Schmidt, Marek Figlerowicz, Jan Majta, Kaja Milanowska-Zabel and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Natalia Szóstak *Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Polish Academy of Sciences, 61-704, Poznan, Poland.
Agata Szymanek *Ardigen S.A., ul. Podole 7, 30-394, Cracow, Poland.
Jan HavránekArdigen S.A., ul. Podole 7, 30-394, Cracow, Poland.
Katarzyna TomelaInstitute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Polish Academy of Sciences, 61-704, Poznan, Poland.
Magdalena RakoczyInstitute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Polish Academy of Sciences, 61-704, Poznan, Poland.
Anna Samelak-CzajkaInstitute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Polish Academy of Sciences, 61-704, Poznan, Poland.
Marcin SchmidtInstitute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Polish Academy of Sciences, 61-704, Poznan, Poland.
Marek FiglerowiczInstitute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Polish Academy of Sciences, 61-704, Poznan, Poland.
Jan MajtaArdigen S.A., ul. Podole 7, 30-394, Cracow, Poland.
Kaja Milanowska-ZabelArdigen S.A., ul. Podole 7, 30-394, Cracow, Poland.
Luiza Handschuh *Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Polish Academy of Sciences, 61-704, Poznan, Poland.
Anna Philips *Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Polish Academy of Sciences, 61-704, Poznan, Poland. aphilips@ibch.poznan.pl.
Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Polish Academy of Sciences · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, the number of metagenomic studies increased significantly. Wide range of factors, including the tremendous community complexity and variability, is contributing to the challenge in reliable microbiome community profiling. Many approaches have been proposed to overcome these problems making hardly possible to compare results of different studies. The significant differences between procedures used in metagenomic research are reflected in a variation of the obtained results. This calls for the need for standardisation of the procedure, to reduce the confounding factors originating from DNA isolation, sequencing and bioinformatics analyses in order to ensure that the differences in microbiome composition are of a true biological origin. Although the best practices for metagenomics studies have been the topic of several publications and the main aim of the International Human Microbiome Standard (IHMS) project, standardisation of the procedure for generating and analysing metagenomic data is still far from being achieved. To highlight the difficulties in the standardisation of metagenomics methods, we thoroughly examined each step of the analysis of the human gut microbiome. We tested the DNA isolation procedure, preparation of NGS libraries for next-generation sequencing, and bioinformatics analysis, aimed at identifying microbial taxa. We showed that the homogenisation time is the leading factor impacting sample diversity, with the recommendation for a shorter homogenisation time (10 min). Ten minutes of homogenisation allows for better reflection of the bacteria gram-positive/gram-negative ratio, and the obtained results are the least heterogenous in terms of beta-diversity of samples microbial composition. Besides increasing the homogenisation time, we observed further potential impact of the library preparation kit on the gut microbiome profiling. Moreover, our analysis revealed that the choice of the library preparation kit influences the reproducibility of the results, which is an important factor that has to be taken into account in every experiment. In this study, a tagmentation-based kit allowed for obtaining the most reproducible results. We also considered the choice of the computational tool for determining the composition of intestinal microbiota, with Kraken2/Bracken pipeline outperforming MetaPhlAn2 in our in silico experiments. The design of an experiment and a detailed establishment of an experimental protocol may have a serious impact on determining the taxonomic profile of the intestinal microbiome community. Results of our experiment can be helpful for a wide range of studies that aim to better understand the role of the gut microbiome, as well as for clinical purposes.

Indexed as

MetagenomicsMicrobiotaDNAHumansMetagenomeReproducibility of ResultsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SDNARNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID35589762
PMCPMC9120454
OpenAlexW4280600426

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.