Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37076812›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2023

Multi-factorial examination of amplicon sequencing workflows from sample preparation to bioinformatic analysis.

Travis J De Wolfe, Erik S Wright

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Travis J De WolfeDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 450 Technology Drive Rm. 426, Pittsburgh, PA, 15219, USA.
Erik S WrightDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 450 Technology Drive Rm. 426, Pittsburgh, PA, 15219, USA. eswright@pitt.edu.
University of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

The internship in Biomedical Research, Informatics, and Computer Science (iBRIC): Biomedical Informatics and Data Science research experiences for students from Minority Serving InstitutionsT15LM007059 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI HARRY S HOCHHEISER · 1987 to 2026
$23.9M
NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007059
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe development of sequencing technologies to evaluate bacterial microbiota composition has allowed new insights into the importance of microbial ecology. However, the variety of methodologies used among amplicon sequencing workflows leads to uncertainty about best practices as well as reproducibility and replicability among microbiome studies. Using a bacterial mock community composed of 37 soil isolates, we performed a comprehensive methodological evaluation of workflows, each with a different combination of methodological factors spanning sample preparation to bioinformatic analysis to define sources of artifacts that affect coverage, accuracy, and biases in the resulting compositional profiles.

resultsOf the workflows examined, those using the V4-V4 primer set enabled the highest level of concordance between the original mock community and resulting microbiome sequence composition. Use of a high-fidelity polymerase, or a lower-fidelity polymerase with an increased PCR elongation time, limited chimera formation. Bioinformatic pipelines presented a trade-off between the fraction of distinct community members identified (coverage) and fraction of correct sequences (accuracy). DADA2 and QIIME2 assembled V4-V4 reads amplified by Taq polymerase resulted in the highest accuracy (100%) but had a coverage of only 52%. Using mothur to assemble and denoise V4-V4 reads resulted in a coverage of 75%, albeit with marginally lower accuracy (99.5%).

conclusionsOptimization of microbiome workflows is critical for accuracy and to support reproducibility and replicability among microbiome studies. These considerations will help reveal the guiding principles of microbial ecology and impact the translation of microbiome research to human and environmental health.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaBacteriaComputational BiologyHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansReproducibility of ResultsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSequence Analysis, DNAWorkflowRNA, Ribosomal, 16S16S rRNAChimeraDADA2MothurPCR artifactsPCR biasesPCR errorsPolymeraseQIIME2Sequencing errors

Identifiers

PMID37076812
PMCPMC10114302
OpenAlexW4366422398

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.