Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37877657›Full record

ArticleMicrobiologyOpen2023

Similarity in milk microbiota in replicates.

Josef Dahlberg, Erik Pelve, Johan Dicksved

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MicrobiologyOpen, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Josef DahlbergDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-8131-6725
Erik PelveDepartment of Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Johan DicksvedDepartment of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Receiving the same results from repeated analysis of the same sample is a basic principle in science. The inability to reproduce previously published results has led to discussions of a reproducibility crisis within science. For studies of microbial communities, the problem of reproducibility is more pronounced and has, in some fields, led to a discussion on the very existence of a constantly present microbiota. In this study, DNA from 44 bovine milk samples were extracted twice and the V3-V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene was sequenced in two separate runs. The FASTQ files from the two data sets were run through the same bioinformatics pipeline using the same settings and results from the two data sets were compared. Milk samples collected maximally 2 h apart were used as replicates and permitted comparisons to be made within the same run. Results show a significant difference in species richness between the two sequencing runs although Shannon and Simpson's diversity was the same. Multivariate analyses of all samples demonstrate that the sequencing run was a driver for variation. Direct comparison of similarity between samples and sequencing run showed an average similarity of 42%-45% depending on whether binary or abundance-based similarity indices were used. Within-run comparisons of milk samples collected maximally 2 h apart showed an average similarity of 39%-47% depending on the similarity index used and that similarity differed significantly between runs. We conclude that repeated DNA extraction and sequencing significantly can affect the results of a low microbial biomass microbiota study.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaMilkAnimalsBacteriaDNAHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingReproducibility of ResultsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SDNARNA, Ribosomal, 16Smicrobiotamilkmock communityrepeatabilityreproducibility

Identifiers

PMID37877657
PMCPMC10542097

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.