Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38560517›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in bioinformatics2024

Ten common issues with reference sequence databases and how to mitigate them.

Samuel D Chorlton

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing 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

43 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Two novel real-time PCR assays forMicrobiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  12. Genomic insights intoMicrobiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Decoding the power of the microbiome in human health.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    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

1 author.

Samuel D ChorltonBugSeq Bioinformatics Inc., Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metagenomic sequencing has revolutionized our understanding of microbiology. While metagenomic tools and approaches have been extensively evaluated and benchmarked, far less attention has been given to the reference sequence database used in metagenomic classification. Issues with reference sequence databases are pervasive. Database contamination is the most recognized issue in the literature; however, it remains relatively unmitigated in most analyses. Other common issues with reference sequence databases include taxonomic errors, inappropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria, and sequence content errors. This review covers ten common issues with reference sequence databases and the potential downstream consequences of these issues. Mitigation measures are discussed for each issue, including bioinformatic tools and database curation strategies. Together, these strategies present a path towards more accurate, reproducible and translatable metagenomic sequencing.

Indexed as

databasemetagenomicreferencesequencetaxonomy

Identifiers

PMID38560517
PMCPMC10978663

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.