ArticleScientific reports2022
The standardisation of the approach to metagenomic human gut analysis: from sample collection to microbiome profiling.
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.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decoding the cancer microbiome: multi-omics, AI, and translational opportunities.Genome biology · 2026Review
- Tracking fungal pathogens on cancer: Oncomicrobes or opportunistic bystanders?PLoS pathogens · 2026Article
- The Enteric Nervous System as a Mediator of Microbiota-Gut-Brain Interactions in Parkinson's Disease.Journal of neurochemistry · 2026Review
- Gut microbiota and the early prevention window in type 1 diabetes and latent autoimmune diabetes in adults: a state-of-the-art narrative review on diet and metabolites.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- The role of gut mycobiome in responses to cancer immunotherapy.Gut microbes · 2025Review
- Evaluating urine volume and host depletion methods to enable genome-resolved metagenomics of the urobiome.Microbiome · 2025Article
- Exploring correlations between gut mycobiome and lymphocytes in melanoma patients undergoing anti-PD-1 therapy.Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII · 2025Article
- Impact of DNA Extraction Methods on Gut Microbiome Profiles: A Comparative Metagenomic Study.Phenomics (Cham, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Microbiome dysbiosis and endometriosis: a systematic scoping review of current literature and knowledge gaps.Human reproduction open · 2025Review
- RpNGS: an automated platform for pathogen identification and monitoring in clinical metagenomics data.PeerJ · 2025Article
- Impact of Edible Insect Polysaccharides on Mouse Gut Microbiota: A Study on White-Spotted Flower Chafer Larva (Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Impact of database choice and confidence score on the performance of taxonomic classification using Kraken2.aBIOTECH · 2024Article
- Narrative Review: Advancing Dysbiosis Treatment in Onco-Hematology with Microbiome-Based Therapeutic Approach.Microorganisms · 2024Review
- The relationship between the gut microbiota and thyroid disorders.Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 2024Review
- Unveiling errors in soil microbial community sequencing: a case for reference soils and improved diagnostics for nanopore sequencing.Communications biology · 2024Article
- Gut Mycobiota Dysbiosis Is Associated with Melanoma and Response to Anti-PD-1 Therapy.Cancer immunology research · 2024Article
- Deep learning methods in metagenomics: a review.Microbial genomics · 2024Review
- Microbiome Dynamics: A Paradigm Shift in Combatting Infectious Diseases.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Establishment and perturbation of human gut microbiome: common trends and variations between Indian and global populations.Gut microbiome (Cambridge, England) · 2024Review
- Comprehensive gut microbiota composition and microbial interactions among the three age groups.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.