ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2023
Quality Control in Metagenomics Data.
Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trustworthy Agentic AI in Bioinformatics: From Workflow Automation to Traceable and Validated Biological Inference.Biology · 2026Review
- Non-Targeted RNA Sequencing: Towards the Development of Universal Clinical Diagnosis Methods for Human and Veterinary Infectious Diseases.Veterinary sciences · 2024Review
- Enhancing Clinical Utility: Utilization of International Standards and Guidelines for Metagenomic Sequencing in Infectious Disease Diagnosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
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
Experiments involving metagenomics data are become increasingly commonplace. Processing such data requires a unique set of considerations. Quality control of metagenomics data is critical to extracting pertinent insights. In this chapter, we outline some considerations in terms of study design and other confounding factors that can often only be realized at the point of data analysis.In this chapter, we outline some basic principles of quality control in metagenomics, including overall reproducibility and some good practices to follow. The general quality control of sequencing data is then outlined, and we introduce ways to process this data by using bash scripts and developing pipelines in Snakemake (Python).A significant part of quality control in metagenomics is in analyzing the data to ensure you can spot relationships between variables and to identify when they might be confounded. This chapter provides a walkthrough of analyzing some microbiome data (in the R statistical language) and demonstrates a few days to identify overall differences and similarities in microbiome data. The chapter is concluded by discussing remarks about considering taxonomic results in the context of the study and interrogating sequence alignments using the command line.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37258856What 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.