ArticleCommunications biology2024
Unveiling errors in soil microbial community sequencing: a case for reference soils and improved diagnostics for nanopore sequencing.
Article in Communications biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A hybrid and cost-efficient barcoding strategy for full-length 16S rRNA gene nanopore sequencing of environmental samples.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Taxonomic diversity and functional adaptations indicated by the rhizospheric soil microbiome derived from Turkish wheat fields.Biology open · 2025Article
- Effects of Biochar on Cadmium Availability, Nitrification and Microbial Communities in Soils with Varied pH Levels.Microorganisms · 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The sequencing platform and workflow strongly influence microbial community analyses through potential errors at each step. Effective diagnostics and experimental controls are needed to validate data and improve reproducibility. This cross-laboratory study evaluates sources of variability and error at three main steps of a standardized amplicon sequencing workflow (DNA extraction, polymerase chain reaction [PCR], and sequencing) using Oxford Nanopore MinION to analyze agricultural soils and a simple mock community. Variability in sequence results occurs at each step in the workflow with PCR errors and differences in library size greatly influencing diversity estimates. Common bioinformatic diagnostics and the mock community are ineffective at detecting PCR abnormalities. This work outlines several diagnostic checks and techniques to account for sequencing depth and ensure accuracy and reproducibility in soil community analyses. These diagnostics and the inclusion of a reference soil can help ensure data validity and facilitate the comparison of multiple sequencing runs within and between laboratories.
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.