ArticleMicroorganisms2024
Improving Bacterial Metagenomic Research through Long-Read Sequencing.
Article in Microorganisms, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cohort profile: Infant Gut Bacterial Study in Pakistan (INBUGS-P) longitudinal birth cohort.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Gut virome dynamics: from commensal to critical player in health and disease.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026Review
- Long-Read Metagenomics Profiling for Identification of Key Microorganisms Affected by Heavy Metals at Technogenic Zones.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- How sequencing technology shapes our understanding of river water microbiomes and resistomes: a comparative study.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2025Article
- Comparative Meta-Analysis of Long-Read and Short-Read Sequencing for Metagenomic Profiling of the Lower Respiratory Tract Infections.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Nanopore sequencing of protozoa: Decoding biological information on a string of biochemical molecules into human-readable signals.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- Metagenomic exploration of the virome ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Impact of propionic acid-rich diets on microbial composition of the murine gut microbiome.Frontiers in microbiomes · 2024Article
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
Metagenomic sequencing analysis is central to investigating microbial communities in clinical and environmental studies. Short-read sequencing remains the primary approach for metagenomic research; however, long-read sequencing may offer advantages of improved metagenomic assembly and resolved taxonomic identification. To compare the relative performance for metagenomic studies, we simulated short- and long-read datasets using increasingly complex metagenomes comprising 10, 20, and 50 microbial taxa. Additionally, we used an empirical dataset of paired short- and long-read data generated from mouse fecal pellets to assess real-world performance. We compared metagenomic assembly quality, taxonomic classification, and metagenome-assembled genome (MAG) recovery rates. We show that long-read sequencing data significantly improve taxonomic classification and assembly quality. Metagenomic assemblies using simulated long reads were more complete and more contiguous with higher rates of MAG recovery. This resulted in more precise taxonomic classifications. Principal component analysis of empirical data demonstrated that sequencing technology affects compositional results as samples clustered by sequence type, not sample type. Overall, we highlight strengths of long-read metagenomic sequencing for microbiome studies, including improving the accuracy of classification and relative abundance estimates. These results will aid researchers when considering which sequencing approaches to use for metagenomic projects.
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.