ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2023
Reducing bias in microbiome research: Comparing methods from sample collection to sequencing.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Niche-specific immune and microbial signatures across the healthy upper respiratory tract mucosa.iScience · 2026Article
- Prostate Cancer at the Microbial Crossroads: Illuminating a New Frontier in Precision Medicine.The world journal of men's health · 2026Review
- Interactions of PGPR from the phylum bacillota with native rhizosphere microbiota: current insights and future perspectives.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2026Review
- Basic Microbiome Analysis: Analytical Steps from Sampling to Sequencing.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Standardized and batch effect-independent technologies enable global collaboration in microbiome research.The ISME journal · 2026Article
- Methodological bias shapes the interpretation of the urinary microbiome in low-biomass systems.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Gut Microbiota in the Hepato-Cardiorenal Axis: Microbial Metabolites, Inflammation, and Emerging Therapeutic Targets.Current pharmaceutical design · 2026Review
- The gut is guilty! Will legalomics transform forensic and legal psychology?Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Oral Microbiome in Oral Cancer Research from Sampling to Analysis: Strategies, Challenges, and Recommendations.Cancers · 2025Review
- Prokaryotic co-occurrence patterns in diverse Indian mangrove ecosystems.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- De-biasing microbiome sequencing data: bacterial morphology-based correction of extraction bias and correlates of chimera formation.Microbiome · 2025Article
- Sequencing the ocular surface microbiome: a review of methodological practices and considerations.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2025Review
- Stabilized and unstabilized sampling methods result in differential fecal 16S rRNA microbial sequencing results.PloS one · 2025Article
- Gut-brain axis modulation in remote rehabilitation of Parkinson's disease: reconstructing the fecal metabolome and nigral network connectivity.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- Strengthening the foundation of African microbiome research: strategies for standardized data collection.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2024Article
- Changes in the Gastrointestinal Microbiota Induced by Proton Pump Inhibitors-A Review of Findings from Experimental Trials.Microorganisms · 2024Review
- Current Trends and Challenges of Microbiome Research in Prostate Cancer.Current oncology reports · 2024Review
- Comparative oncology using domesticated dogs and their microbiome.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Impact of antibiotic prophylaxis on gut microbiota in colorectal surgery: insights from an Eastern European stewardship study.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
- A streamlined pipeline based on HmmUFOtu for microbial community profiling using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing.Genomics & informatics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Microbiota profiles are strongly influenced by many technical aspects that impact the ability of researchers to compare results. To investigate and identify potential biases introduced by technical variations, we compared several approaches throughout the entire workflow of a microbiome study, from sample collection to sequencing, using commercially available mock communities (from bacterial strains as well as from DNA) and multiple human fecal samples, including a large set of positive controls created as a random mix of several participant samples. Methods: Human fecal material was sampled, and aliquots were used to test two commercially available stabilization solutions (OMNIgene·GUT and Zymo Research) in comparison to samples frozen immediately upon collection. In addition, the methodology for DNA extraction, input of DNA, or the number of PCR cycles were analyzed. Furthermore, to investigate the potential batch effects in DNA extraction, sequencing, and barcoding, we included 139 positive controls. Results: Samples preserved in both the stabilization buffers limited the overgrowth of Enterobacteriaceae when compared to unpreserved samples stored at room temperature (RT). These stabilized samples stored at RT were different from immediately frozen samples, where the relative abundance of Bacteroidota was higher and Actinobacteriota and Firmicutes were lower. As reported previously, the method used for cell disruption was a major contributor to variation in microbiota composition. In addition, a high number of cycles during PCR lead to an increase in contaminants detected in the negative controls. The DNA extraction had a significant impact on the microbial composition, also observed with the use of different Illumina barcodes during library preparation and sequencing, while no batch effect was observed in replicate runs. Conclusion: Our study reaffirms the importance of the mechanical cell disruption method and immediate frozen storage as critical aspects in fecal microbiota studies. A comparison of storage conditions revealed that the bias was limited in RT samples preserved in stabilization systems, and these may be a suitable compromise when logistics are challenging due to the size or location of a study. Moreover, to reduce the effect of contaminants in fecal microbiota profiling studies, we suggest the use of ~125 pg input DNA and 25 PCR cycles as optimal parameters during library preparation.
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.