Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39361586›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

ASV vs OTUs clustering: Effects on alpha, beta, and gamma diversities in microbiome metabarcoding studies.

Andrea Fasolo, Saptarathi Deb, Piergiorgio Stevanato, Giuseppe Concheri, Andrea Squartini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. International journal of microbiology · 2026
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2026
    Article
  13. Effects of dietary fermented passion fruit (Frontiers in nutrition · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Andrea FasoloDepartment of Agronomy, Animals, Food, Natural Resources and Environment DAFNAE, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Saptarathi DebDepartment of Agronomy, Animals, Food, Natural Resources and Environment DAFNAE, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Piergiorgio StevanatoDepartment of Agronomy, Animals, Food, Natural Resources and Environment DAFNAE, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Giuseppe ConcheriDepartment of Agronomy, Animals, Food, Natural Resources and Environment DAFNAE, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Andrea SquartiniDepartment of Agronomy, Animals, Food, Natural Resources and Environment DAFNAE, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1961-1165

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In microbial community sequencing, involving bacterial ribosomal 16S rDNA or fungal ITS, the targeted genes are the basis for taxonomical assignment. The traditional bioinformatical procedure has for decades made use of a clustering protocol by which sequences are pooled into packages of shared percent identity, typically at 97%, to yield Operational Technical Units (OTUs). Progress in the data processing methods has however led to the possibility of minimizing technical sequencers errors, which were the main reason for the OTU choice, and to analyze instead the exact Amplicon Sequence Variants (ASV) which is a choice yielding much less agglomerated reads. We have tested the two procedures on the same 16S metabarcoded bacterial amplicons dataset encompassing a series of samples from 17 adjacent habitats, taken across a 700 meter-long transect of different ecological conditions unfolding in a gradient spanning from cropland, through meadows, forest and all successional transitions up to the seashore, within the same coastal area. This design allowed to scan a high biodiversity basin and to measure alpha, beta and gamma diversity of the area, to verify the effect of the bioinformatics on the same data as concerns the values of ten different ecological indexes and other parameters. Two levels of progressive OTUs clustering, (99% and 97%) were compared with the ASV data. The results showed that the OTUs clustering proportionally led to a marked underestimation of the ecological indicators values for species diversity and to a distorted behaviour of the dominance and evenness indexes with respect to the direct use of the ASV data. Multivariate ordination analyses resulted also sensitive in terms of tree topology and coherence. Overall, data support the view that reference-based OTU clustering carries several misleading disadvantageous biases, including the risk of missing novel taxa which are yet unreferenced in databases. Since its alternatives as de novo clustering have on the other hand drawbacks due to heavier computational demand and results comparability, especially for environmental studies which contain several yet uncharacterized species, the direct ASV based analysis, at least for prokaryotes, appears to warrant significand advantages in comparison to OTU clustering at every level of percent identity cutoff.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaRNA, Ribosomal, 16SBacteriaBiodiversityCluster AnalysisDNA, BacterialDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicPhylogenyDNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID39361586
PMCPMC11449282

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.