Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35945640›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2022

Developing whole cell standards for the microbiome field.

Chrysi Sergaki, Saba Anwar, Martin Fritzsche, Ryan Mate, Robert J Francis, Kirsty MacLellan-Gibson, Alastair Logan, Gregory C A Amos

Abstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2022. 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
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

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

Chrysi SergakiDivision of Bacteriology, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, EN6 3QG, UK. Chrysi.Sergaki@NIBSC.org.ORCID 0000-0003-0477-8680
Saba AnwarDivision of Bacteriology, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, EN6 3QG, UK.
Martin FritzscheDivision of Analytical and Biological Sciences, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, EN6 3QG, UK.
Ryan MateDivision of Analytical and Biological Sciences, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, EN6 3QG, UK.
Robert J FrancisDivision of Analytical and Biological Sciences, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, EN6 3QG, UK.
Kirsty MacLellan-GibsonDivision of Analytical and Biological Sciences, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, EN6 3QG, UK.
Alastair LoganDivision of Bacteriology, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, EN6 3QG, UK.
Gregory C A AmosDivision of Bacteriology, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, EN6 3QG, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective standardisation of the microbiome field is essential to facilitate global translational research and increase the reproducibility of microbiome studies. In this study, we describe the development and validation of a whole cell reference reagent specific to the gut microbiome by the UK National Institute for Biological Standards and Control. We also provide and test a two-step reporting framework to allow microbiome researchers to quickly and accurately validate choices of DNA extraction, sequencing, and bioinformatic pipelines.

resultsUsing 20 strains that are commonly found in the gut, we developed a whole cell reference reagent (WC-Gut RR) for the evaluation of the DNA extraction protocols commonly used in microbiome pipelines. DNA was first analysed using the physicochemical measures of yield, integrity, and purity, which demonstrated kits widely differed in the quality of the DNA they produced. Importantly, the combination of the WC-Gut RR and the three physicochemical measures allowed us to differentiate clearly between kit performance. We next assessed the ability of WC-Gut RR to evaluate kit performance in the reconstitution of accurate taxonomic profiles. We applied a four-measure framework consisting of Sensitivity, false-positive relative abundance (FPRA), Diversity, and Similarity as previously described for DNA reagents. Using the WC-Gut RR and these four measures, we could reliably identify the DNA extraction kits' biases when using with both 16S rRNA sequencing and shotgun sequencing. Moreover, when combining this with complementary DNA standards, we could estimate the relative bias contributions of DNA extraction kits vs bioinformatic analysis. Finally, we assessed WC-Gut RR alongside other commercially available reagents. The analysis here clearly demonstrates that reagents of lower complexity, not composed of anaerobic and hard-to-lyse strains from the gut, can artificially inflate the performance of microbiome DNA extraction kits and bioinformatic pipelines.

conclusionsWe produced a complex whole cell reagent that is specific for the gut microbiome and can be used to evaluate and benchmark DNA extractions in microbiome studies. Used alongside a DNA standard, the NIBSC DNA-Gut-Mix RR helps estimating where biases occur in microbiome pipelines. In the future, we aim to establish minimum thresholds for data quality through an interlaboratory collaborative study. Video Abstract.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaDNADNA, BacterialFecesReproducibility of ResultsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SDNADNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16SBioinformaticsDNA extractionMicrobiomeNext-generation sequencingReference reagentsStandardisationStandards

Identifiers

PMID35945640
PMCPMC9361656

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.