Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36949474›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2023

In silico evaluation and selection of the best 16S rRNA gene primers for use in next-generation sequencing to detect oral bacteria and archaea.

Alba Regueira-Iglesias, Lara Vázquez-González, Carlos Balsa-Castro, Nicolás Vila-Blanco, Triana Blanco-Pintos, Javier Tamames, Maria José Carreira, Inmaculada Tomás

Full text readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. ProteolyticMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    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

8 authors.

Alba Regueira-IglesiasOral Sciences Research Group, Department of Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Health Research Institute Foundation of Santiago (FIDIS), C/ Entrerrios s/n, 15872, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Lara Vázquez-GonzálezCentro Singular de Investigación en Tecnoloxías Intelixentes and Departamento de Electrónica e Computación, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Health Research Institute Foundation of Santiago (FIDIS), Rúa de Jenaro de la Fuente, s/n, 15705, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Carlos Balsa-CastroOral Sciences Research Group, Department of Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Health Research Institute Foundation of Santiago (FIDIS), C/ Entrerrios s/n, 15872, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Nicolás Vila-BlancoCentro Singular de Investigación en Tecnoloxías Intelixentes and Departamento de Electrónica e Computación, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Health Research Institute Foundation of Santiago (FIDIS), Rúa de Jenaro de la Fuente, s/n, 15705, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Triana Blanco-PintosOral Sciences Research Group, Department of Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Health Research Institute Foundation of Santiago (FIDIS), C/ Entrerrios s/n, 15872, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Javier TamamesMicrobiome Analysis Laboratory, Systems Biology Department, Centro Nacional de Biotecnología (CNB)-CSIC, Madrid, Spain.
Maria José CarreiraCentro Singular de Investigación en Tecnoloxías Intelixentes and Departamento de Electrónica e Computación, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Health Research Institute Foundation of Santiago (FIDIS), Rúa de Jenaro de la Fuente, s/n, 15705, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. mariajose.carreira@usc.es.
Inmaculada TomásOral Sciences Research Group, Department of Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Health Research Institute Foundation of Santiago (FIDIS), C/ Entrerrios s/n, 15872, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. inmaculada.tomas@usc.es.ORCID 0000-0002-3317-0853

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSequencing has been widely used to study the composition of the oral microbiome present in various health conditions. The extent of the coverage of the 16S rRNA gene primers employed for this purpose has not, however, been evaluated in silico using oral-specific databases. This paper analyses these primers using two databases containing 16S rRNA sequences from bacteria and archaea found in the human mouth and describes some of the best primers for each domain.

resultsA total of 369 distinct individual primers were identified from sequencing studies of the oral microbiome and other ecosystems. These were evaluated against a database reported in the literature of 16S rRNA sequences obtained from oral bacteria, which was modified by our group, and a self-created oral archaea database. Both databases contained the genomic variants detected for each included species. Primers were evaluated at the variant and species levels, and those with a species coverage (SC) ≥75.00% were selected for the pair analyses. All possible combinations of the forward and reverse primers were identified, with the resulting 4638 primer pairs also evaluated using the two databases. The best bacteria-specific pairs targeted the 3-4, 4-7, and 3-7 16S rRNA gene regions, with SC levels of 98.83-97.14%; meanwhile, the optimum archaea-specific primer pairs amplified regions 5-6, 3-6, and 3-6, with SC estimates of 95.88%. Finally, the best pairs for detecting both domains targeted regions 4-5, 3-5, and 5-9, and produced SC values of 95.71-94.54% and 99.48-96.91% for bacteria and archaea, respectively.

conclusionsGiven the three amplicon length categories (100-300, 301-600, and >600 base pairs), the primer pairs with the best coverage values for detecting oral bacteria were as follows: KP_F048-OP_R043 (region 3-4; primer pair position for Escherichia coli J01859.1: 342-529), KP_F051-OP_R030 (4-7; 514-1079), and KP_F048-OP_R030 (3-7; 342-1079). For detecting oral archaea, these were as follows: OP_F066-KP_R013 (5-6; 784-undefined), KP_F020-KP_R013 (3-6; 518-undefined), and OP_F114-KP_R013 (3-6; 340-undefined). Lastly, for detecting both domains jointly they were KP_F020-KP_R032 (4-5; 518-801), OP_F114-KP_R031 (3-5; 340-801), and OP_F066-OP_R121 (5-9; 784-1405). The primer pairs with the best coverage identified herein are not among those described most widely in the oral microbiome literature. Video Abstract.

Indexed as

ArchaeaMicrobiotaBacteriaDNA PrimersGenes, rRNAHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansPhylogenyRNA, Ribosomal, 16SDNA PrimersRNA, Ribosomal, 16S16S rRNA geneArchaeaBacteriaCoverageDatabaseMouthPrimer

Identifiers

PMID36949474
PMCPMC10035280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read178
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.