Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36564466›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Assessing and removing the effect of unwanted technical variations in microbiome data.

Muhamad Fachrul, Guillaume Méric, Michael Inouye, Sünje Johanna Pamp, Agus Salim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Unlocking the Metagenome: Pipeline for Microbiome Data Analysis.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors.

Muhamad FachrulCambridge Baker Systems Genomics Initiative, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Guillaume MéricCambridge Baker Systems Genomics Initiative, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Michael InouyeCambridge Baker Systems Genomics Initiative, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Sünje Johanna PampNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, 2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Agus SalimCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia. salim.a@unimelb.edu.au.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Varying technologies and experimental approaches used in microbiome studies often lead to irreproducible results due to unwanted technical variations. Such variations, often unaccounted for and of unknown source, may interfere with true biological signals, resulting in misleading biological conclusions. In this work, we aim to characterize the major sources of technical variations in microbiome data and demonstrate how in-silico approaches can minimize their impact. We analyzed 184 pig faecal metagenomes encompassing 21 specific combinations of deliberately introduced factors of technical and biological variations. Using the novel Removing Unwanted Variations-III-Negative Binomial (RUV-III-NB), we identified several known experimental factors, specifically storage conditions and freeze-thaw cycles, as likely major sources of unwanted variation in metagenomes. We also observed that these unwanted technical variations do not affect taxa uniformly, with freezing samples affecting taxa of class Bacteroidia the most, for example. Additionally, we benchmarked the performances of different correction methods, including ComBat, ComBat-seq, RUVg, RUVs, and RUV-III-NB. While RUV-III-NB performed consistently robust across our sensitivity and specificity metrics, most other methods did not remove unwanted variations optimally. Our analyses suggest that a careful consideration of possible technical confounders is critical during experimental design of microbiome studies, and that the inclusion of technical replicates is necessary to efficiently remove unwanted variations computationally.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaAnimalsBacteroidetesFecesFreezingMetagenomeSwine

Identifiers

PMID36564466
PMCPMC9789116

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.