Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36322250›Full record

ArticleApplied microbiology and biotechnology2022

Comparison of iSeq and MiSeq as the two platforms for 16S rRNA sequencing in the study of the gut of rat microbiome.

Dominika Salamon, Barbara Zapała, Agnieszka Krawczyk, Agnieszka Potasiewicz, Agnieszka Nikiforuk, Anastazja Stój, Tomasz Gosiewski

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. The Impact of ProbioticLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  11. Usefulness of Molecular Methods forInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Dominika Salamon *Department of Molecular Medical Microbiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland.
Barbara Zapała *Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland.
Agnieszka KrawczykDepartment of Molecular Medical Microbiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland.
Agnieszka PotasiewiczDepartment of Behavioural Neuroscience and Drug Development, Polish Academy of Sciences, Maj Institute of Pharmacology, Krakow, Poland.
Agnieszka NikiforukDepartment of Behavioural Neuroscience and Drug Development, Polish Academy of Sciences, Maj Institute of Pharmacology, Krakow, Poland.
Anastazja StójDepartment of Hematology Diagnostics and Genetics, University Hospital, Krakow, Poland.
Tomasz GosiewskiDepartment of Molecular Medical Microbiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland. tomasz.gosiewski@uj.edu.pl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4725-5943
Jagiellonian University · PLMaj Institute of Pharmacology · PLUniversity School of Physical Education in Kraków · PL

Funding

CSRD VA 1Narodowe Centrum Nauki 2021/43/D/NZ5/00469
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Amplicon-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) of the 16S ribosomal RNA (16S) regions is a culture-free method used to identify and analyze Procaryota occurring within a given sample. The prokaryotic 16S rRNA gene contains conserved regions and nine variable regions (V1-V9) frequently used for phylogenetic classification of genus or species in diverse microbial populations. This work compares the accuracy and efficacy of two platforms, iSeq and MiSeq from Illumina, used in sequencing 16S rRNA. The most important similarities and differences of 16S microbiome sequencing in 20 fecal rat samples were described. Genetic libraries were prepared according to 16S Metagenomic Sequencing Library Preparation (Illumina) for the V3 and V4 regions of the 16S. The species richness obtained using iSeq technology was lower compared to MiSeq. At the second taxonomy level (L2), the abundance of taxa was comparable for both platforms. At the L7, the taxa abundance was significantly different, and the number of taxa was higher for the MiSeq. The alpha diversity was lower for iSeq than for MiSeq, starting from the order to the species level. The beta diversity estimation revealed statistically significant differences in microbiota diversity starting from the class level to the species level in samples sequenced on two investigated platforms. This work disclosed that the iSeq platform could be used to evaluate the bacterial profile of the samples to characterize the overall profile. The MiSeq System seems to be better for a detailed analysis of the differences in the microbiota composition. KEY POINTS: • iSeq platform allows to shorten the sequencing time three times compared to the MiSeq. • iSeq can only be used for an initial and quick microbiome assessment. • MiSeq is better for a detailed analysis of the differences in the microbiota composition.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaAnimalsDNA, BacterialHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingPhylogenyRatsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SDNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16S16S rRNA sequencingAbundanceBiodiversityGut microbiomeiSeqMiSeqNGS

Identifiers

PMID36322250
PMCPMC9628524
OpenAlexW4308115898

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.