ArticleScientific reports2023
Mock community as an in situ positive control for amplicon sequencing of microbiotas from the same ecosystem.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sympatric Lepus spp. in the central Italian Alps host significantly different gut microbiotas.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Design, processing, and modeling for longitudinal multiomics microbiome data.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Biodiversity in mountain soils above the treeline.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025Review
- Phyllosphere synthetic microbial communities: a new frontier in plant protection.BMC plant biology · 2025Review
- Do we need a standardized 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing analysis protocol for poultry microbiota research?Poultry science · 2025Review
- State-of-the-art approaches in the investigation of human seminal bacteriome using metagenomic methods.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2025Review
- Comparison of commonly used software pipelines for analyzing fungal metabarcoding data.BMC genomics · 2024Article
- Comparison of DNA extraction methods on different sample matrices within the same terrestrial ecosystem.Scientific reports · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Metataxonomy has become the standard for characterizing the diversity and composition of microbial communities associated with multicellular organisms and their environment. Currently available protocols for metataxonomy assume a uniform DNA extraction, amplification and sequencing efficiency for all sample types and taxa. It has been suggested that the addition of a mock community (MC) to biological samples before the DNA extraction step could aid identification of technical biases during processing and support direct comparisons of microbiota composition, but the impact of MC on diversity estimates of samples is unknown. Here, large and small aliquots of pulverized bovine fecal samples were extracted with no, low or high doses of MC, characterized using standard Illumina technology for metataxonomics, and analysed with custom bioinformatic pipelines. We demonstrated that sample diversity estimates were distorted only if MC dose was high compared to sample mass (i.e. when MC > 10% of sample reads). We also showed that MC was an informative in situ positive control, permitting an estimation of the sample 16S copy number, and detecting sample outliers. We tested this approach on a range of sample types from a terrestrial ecosystem, including rhizosphere soil, whole invertebrates, and wild vertebrate fecal samples, and discuss possible clinical applications.
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.