ArticleGenes2022
What Can We Learn about the Bias of Microbiome Studies from Analyzing Data from Mock Communities?
Article in Genes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Amplicon-based sequencing as a diagnostic tool for severe pneumonia in the ICU.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Analytical assessment of metagenomic workflows for pathogen detection with NIST RM 8376 and two sample matrices.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
It is known that data from both 16S and shotgun metagenomics studies are subject to biases that cause the observed relative abundances of taxa to differ from their true values. Model community analyses, in which the relative abundances of all taxa in the sample are known by construction, seem to offer the hope that these biases can be measured. However, it is unclear whether the bias we measure in a mock community analysis is the same as we measure in a sample in which taxa are spiked in at known relative abundance, or if the biases we measure in spike-in samples is the same as the bias we would measure in a real (e.g., biological) sample. Here, we consider these questions in the context of 16S rRNA measurements on three sets of samples: the commercially available Zymo cells model community; the Zymo model community mixed with Swedish Snus, a smokeless tobacco product that is virtually bacteria-free; and a set of commercially available smokeless tobacco products. Each set of samples was subject to four different extraction protocols. The goal of our analysis is to determine whether the patterns of bias observed in each set of samples are the same, i.e., can we learn about the bias in the commercially available smokeless tobacco products by studying the Zymo cells model community?
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.