Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38114587›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Multicenter evaluation of gut microbiome profiling by next-generation sequencing reveals major biases in partial-length metabarcoding approach.

Hugo Roume, Stanislas Mondot, Adrien Saliou, Sophie Le Fresne-Languille, Joël Doré

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. UMI-guided single locus sequence typing method for phylotypingFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Nested PCR to optimizeMicrobiology spectrum · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Hugo RoumeUniversité Paris-Saclay, INRAE, MetaGenoPolis, 78350, Jouy-en-Josas, France.
Stanislas MondotUniversité Paris-Saclay, INRAE, AgroParisTech, Micalis Institute, 78350, Jouy-en-Josas, France.
Adrien SaliouBIOASTER, Microbiology Technology Institute, 40 Avenue Tony Garnier, 69007, Lyon, France.
Sophie Le Fresne-LanguilleBiofortis SAS, 3 Route de la Chatterie, Saint-Herblain, 44800, Nantes, France.
Joël DoréUniversité Paris-Saclay, INRAE, MetaGenoPolis, 78350, Jouy-en-Josas, France. joel.dore@inrae.fr.
Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement · FRBIOASTER · FRInstitut Génétique Nantes Atlantique · FRMicrobiologie de l’alimentation au service de la santé · FR

Funding

European Research Council 2017-AdG No. 788191
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing workflows, using either metabarcoding or metagenomic approaches, have massively contributed to expanding knowledge of the human gut microbiota, but methodological bias compromises reproducibility across studies. Where these biases have been quantified within several comparative analyses on their own, none have measured inter-laboratory reproducibility using similar DNA material. Here, we designed a multicenter study involving seven participating laboratories dedicated to partial- (P1 to P5), full-length (P6) metabarcoding, or metagenomic profiling (MGP) using DNA from a mock microbial community or extracted from 10 fecal samples collected at two time points from five donors. Fecal material was collected, and the DNA was extracted according to the IHMS protocols. The mock and isolated DNA were then provided to the participating laboratories for sequencing. Following sequencing analysis according to the laboratories' routine pipelines, relative taxonomic-count tables defined at the genus level were provided and analyzed. Large variations in alpha-diversity between laboratories, uncorrelated with sequencing depth, were detected among the profiles. Half of the genera identified by P1 were unique to this partner and two-thirds of the genera identified by MGP were not detected by P3. Analysis of beta-diversity revealed lower inter-individual variance than inter-laboratory variances. The taxonomic profiles of P5 and P6 were more similar to those of MGP than those obtained by P1, P2, P3, and P4. Reanalysis of the raw sequences obtained by partial-length metabarcoding profiling, using a single bioinformatic pipeline, harmonized the description of the bacterial profiles, which were more similar to each other, except for P3, and closer to the profiles obtained by MGP. This study highlights the major impact of the bioinformatics pipeline, and primarily the database used for taxonomic annotation. Laboratories need to benchmark and optimize their bioinformatic pipelines using standards to monitor their effectiveness in accurately detecting taxa present in gut microbiota.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeMicrobiotaDNA, BacterialHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansReproducibility of ResultsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SDNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID38114587
PMCPMC10730622
OpenAlexW4389951333

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.