Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39554614›Full record

ReviewComputational and structural biotechnology journal2024

Constructing phylogenetic trees for microbiome data analysis: A mini-review.

Ruitao Liu, Xi Qiao, Yushu Shi, Christine B Peterson, William S Bush, Fabio Cominelli, Ming Wang, Liangliang Zhang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Microbial Omics.Progress in molecular and subcellular biology · 2026
    Review
  5. Genomic characterization and niche adaptive analysis ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors.

Ruitao LiuDepartment of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, 44106, OH, United States.
Xi QiaoDepartment of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, 44106, OH, United States.
Yushu ShiWeill Cornell Medicine, Cornell University, 1300 York Ave, New York, 10065, NY, United States.
Christine B PetersonThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, 77030, TX, United States.
William S BushDepartment of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, 44106, OH, United States.
Fabio CominelliDepartment of Pathology, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, 44106, OH, United States.
Ming WangDepartment of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, 44106, OH, United States.
Liangliang ZhangDepartment of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, 44106, OH, United States.

Funding

The Cleveland Digestive Diseases Research Core Center (DDRCC)P30DK097948 · NIDDK · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI Fabio Cominelli · 2015 to 2026
$15.6M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK097948
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As next-generation sequencing technologies advance rapidly and the cost of metagenomic sequencing continues to decrease, researchers now face an unprecedented volume of microbiome data. This surge has stimulated the development of scalable microbiome data analysis methods and necessitated the incorporation of phylogenetic information into microbiome analysis for improved accuracy. Tools for constructing phylogenetic trees from 16S rRNA sequencing data are well-established, as the highly conserved regions of the 16S gene are limited, simplifying the identification of marker genes. In contrast, metagenomic and whole genome shotgun (WGS) sequencing involve sequencing from random fragments of the entire gene, making identification of consistent marker genes challenging owing to the vast diversity of genomic regions, resulting in a scarcity of robust tools for constructing phylogenetic trees. Although bacterial sequence tree construction tools exist for upstream bioinformatics, many downstream researchers-those integrating these trees into statistical models or machine learning-are either unaware of these tools or find them difficult to use due to the steep learning curve of processing raw sequences. This is compounded by the fact that public datasets often lack phylogenetic trees, providing only abundance tables and taxonomic classifications. To address this, we present a comprehensive review of phylogenetic tree construction techniques for microbiome data (16S rRNA or whole-genome shotgun sequencing). We outline the strengths and limitations of current methods, offering expert insights and step-by-step guidance to make these tools more accessible and widely applicable in quantitative microbiome data analysis.

Indexed as

16S sequencingAlignmentMicrobiomePhylogenetic treesShotgun sequencing

Identifiers

PMID39554614
PMCPMC11564040

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.