ArticleJournal of oral microbiology2024
Comparison of the performance of MiSeq and NovaSeq in oral microbiome study.
Article in Journal of oral microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tracing Species Boundaries Through Genomic Baits: Diagnostic SNP Panels for Genotyping Orchid Pollinaria.Evolutionary applications · 2026Article
- A Practical Comparison of Short- and Long-Read Metabarcoding Sequencing: Challenges and Solutions for Plastid Read Removal and Microbial Community Exploration of Seaweed Samples.Molecular ecology resources · 2025Article
- Time-dependent microbiome dynamics in orthodontic thermoplastic materials: comparing PETG and TPU.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Taxonomic Diversity and Clinical Correlations in Periapical Lesions by Next-Generation Sequencing Analysis.Genes · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Next generation sequencing is commonly used to characterize the microbiome structure. MiSeq is most commonly used to analyze the microbiome due to its relatively long read length. Illumina also introduced the 250 × 2 chip for NovaSeq. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of MiSeq and NovaSeq in the context of oral microbiome study. Methods: Total read count, read quality score, relative bacterial abundance, community diversity, and correlation between two platforms were analyzed. Phylogenetic trees were analyzed for Results: NovaSeq produced significantly more read counts and assigned more operational taxonomic units (OTUs) compared to MiSeq. Community diversity was similar between MiSeq and NovaSeq. NovaSeq were able to detect more unique OTUs compared to MiSeq. When phylogenetic trees were constructed for Conclusion: Taken together, while both MiSeq and NovaSeq platforms effectively characterize the oral microbiome, NovaSeq outperformed MiSeq in terms of read counts and detection of unique OTUs, highlighting its potential as a valuable tool for large scale oral microbiome studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.