Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38251877›Full record

ArticlemSphere2024

Rarefaction is currently the best approach to control for uneven sequencing effort in amplicon sequence analyses.

Patrick D Schloss

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in mSphere, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 139 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
139citing papers in PubMed
61.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

139 citing papers in PubMed, 135 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Molecular Detection ofMicroorganisms · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

79 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Patrick D SchlossDepartment of Microbiology & Immunology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6935-4275
University of Michigan · US

Funding

University of Michigan Center for Gastrointestinal ResearchP30DK034933 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI OWYANG, CHUNG · 1986 to 2021
$22.5M
Systems biology of Clostridium difficile infectionU01AI124255 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI SCHLOSS, PATRICK DAVID, YOUNG, VINCENT B · 2016 to 2020
$9.8M
Identification of Microbiome Based Markers to Improve Colorectal Cancer DetectionR01CA215574 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI RUFFIN, MACK T., SCHLOSS, PATRICK DAVID · 2018 to 2021
$1.4M
muMS2: an open source R package for analyzing and integrating multi-omics datasets to improve early detection and understanding of colorectal cancerU01CA264071 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI BALUNAS, MARCY J, SCHLOSS, PATRICK DAVID · 2022 to 2024
$1.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA215574NCI NIH HHS U01 CA264071NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI124255NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK034933
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Considering it is common to find as much as 100-fold variation in the number of 16S rRNA gene sequences across samples in a study, researchers need to control for the effect of uneven sequencing effort. How to do this has become a contentious question. Some have argued that rarefying or rarefaction is "inadmissible" because it omits valid data. A number of alternative approaches have been developed to normalize and rescale the data that purport to be invariant to the number of observations. I generated community distributions based on 12 published data sets where I was able to assess the ability of multiple methods to control for uneven sequencing effort. Rarefaction was the only method that could control for variation in uneven sequencing effort when measuring commonly used alpha and beta diversity metrics. Next, I compared the false detection rate and power to detect true differences between simulated communities with a known effect size using various alpha and beta diversity metrics. Although all methods of controlling for uneven sequencing effort had an acceptable false detection rate when samples were randomly assigned to two treatment groups, rarefaction was consistently able to control for differences in sequencing effort when sequencing depth was confounded with treatment group. Finally, the statistical power to detect differences in alpha and beta diversity metrics was consistently the highest when using rarefaction. These simulations underscore the importance of using rarefaction to normalize the number of sequences across samples in amplicon sequencing analyses. IMPORTANCE: Sequencing 16S rRNA gene fragments has become a fundamental tool for understanding the diversity of microbial communities and the factors that affect their diversity. Due to technical challenges, it is common to observe wide variation in the number of sequences that are collected from different samples within the same study. However, the diversity metrics used by microbial ecologists are sensitive to differences in sequencing effort. Therefore, tools are needed to control for the uneven levels of sequencing. This simulation-based analysis shows that despite a longstanding controversy, rarefaction is the most robust approach to control for uneven sequencing effort. The controversy started because of confusion over the definition of rarefaction and violation of assumptions that are made by methods that have been borrowed from other fields. Microbial ecologists should use rarefaction.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaComputational BiologyHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSequence Analysis, DNARNA, Ribosomal, 16S16S rRNA gene sequencingamplicon sequencingbioinformaticsdata sciencemicrobial ecologymicrobiome

Identifiers

PMID38251877
PMCPMC10900887
OpenAlexW4391109163

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.