ArticleScientific reports2022
Assessing and removing the effect of unwanted technical variations in microbiome data.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in human microbiome research: from data integration to explainable translation.Archives of microbiology · 2026Review
- ABaCo: addressing heterogeneity challenges in metagenomic data integration with adversarial generative models.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Benchmarking ensemble and deep learning models for drought-responsive gene prioritisation in rice using multi-omics data.PloS one · 2026Article
- Unlocking the Metagenome: Pipeline for Microbiome Data Analysis.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Nepali oral microbiomes reflect a gradient of lifestyles from traditional to industrialized.Microbiome · 2024Article
- Assessing and mitigating batch effects in large-scale omics studies.Genome biology · 2024Review
- An improved and extended dual-index multiplexed 16S rRNA sequencing for the Illumina HiSeq and MiSeq platform.BMC genomic data · 2024Article
- Commercial farmed swine harbour a variety of pathogenic bacteria and antimicrobial resistance genes.Journal of medical microbiology · 2024Article
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
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
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.