ArticleMicrobiome2022
Developing whole cell standards for the microbiome field.
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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multidisciplinary Delphi consensus statement on minimal standards for clinical metadata and end points in microbiome studies.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026Review
- Quantitative evaluation of microbiome sequencing resolution under varying experimental conditions using defined mock communities.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Phages for One Health: regulatory and product life cycle considerations.Microbiology (Reading, England) · 2026Review
- Meeting report of the eight annual Tri-Service Microbiome Consortium Symposium.BMC proceedings · 2025Article
- DNA reference reagents isolate biases in microbiome profiling: a global multi-lab study.mSystems · 2025Article
- De-biasing microbiome sequencing data: bacterial morphology-based correction of extraction bias and correlates of chimera formation.Microbiome · 2025Article
- A sensitivity analysis of methodological variables associated with microbiome measurements.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Standardization of 16S rRNA gene sequencing using nanopore long read sequencing technology for clinical diagnosis of culture negative infections.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Microbiome testing in Europe: navigating analytical, ethical and regulatory challenges.Microbiome · 2024Article
- Limitations of current techniques in clinical antimicrobial resistance diagnosis: examples and future prospects.npj antimicrobials and resistance · 2024Review
- VESPA: an optimized protocol for accurate metabarcoding-based characterization of vertebrate eukaryotic endosymbiont and parasite assemblages.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Optimization of a DNA extraction protocol for improving bacterial and fungal classification based on Nanopore sequencing.Access microbiology · 2024Article
- Building a future for phage-based technologies-a thought leadership approach to accelerating progress in the UK.Sustainable microbiology · 2024Article
- Methodologic Considerations for Studying the Ocular Surface Microbiome.Ophthalmology science · 2023Review
- Gut Microbiota in Nutrition and Health with a Special Focus on Specific Bacterial Clusters.Cells · 2022Review
- Microbiota-directed biotherapeutics: considerations for quality and functional assessment.Gut microbesReview
- Integrating Plant Physiology and Microbiome Engineering for Climate-Resilient Crops: Bridging Knowledge Gaps in Multi-Stress Tolerance.Physiologia plantarumReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.