ArticlePloS one2024
Comparing subsampling strategies for metagenomic analysis in microbial studies using amplicon sequence variants versus operational taxonomic units.
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 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.
- The faecal microbiome and carriage of Salmonella in Australian captive pythons.FEMS microbiology ecology · 2026Article
- Primer choice shapes microbial community interpretation across habitats and informs short-term structured enrichment in environmental and applied systems.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The microbiome is increasingly regarded as a key component of human health, and analysis of microbiome data can aid in the development of precision medicine. Due to the high cost of shotgun metagenomic sequencing (SM-seq), microbiome analyses can be done cost-effectively in two phases: Phase 1-sequencing of 16S ribosomal RNA, and Phase 2-SM-seq of an informative subsample. Existing research suggests strategies to select the subsample based on biological diversity and dissimilarity metrics calculated using operational taxonomic units (OTUs). However, the microbiome field has progressed towards amplicon sequencing variants (ASVs), as they provide more precise microbe identification and sample diversity information. The aim of this work is to compare the subsampling strategies for two-phase metagenomic studies when using ASVs instead of OTUs, and to propose data driven strategies for subsample selection through dimension reduction techniques. We used 199 samples of infant-gut microbiome data from the DIABIMMUNE project to generate ASVs and OTUs, then generated subsamples based on five existing biologically driven subsampling methods and two data driven methods. Linear discriminant analysis Effect Size (LEfSe) was used to assess differential representation of taxa between the subsamples and the overall sample. The use of ASVs showed a 50-93% agreement in the subsample selection with the use of OTUs for the subsampling methods evaluated, and showed a similar bacterial representation across all methods. Although sampling using ASVs and OTUs typically lead to similar results for each subsample, ASVs had more clades that differed in expression levels between allergic and non-allergic individuals across all sample sizes compared to OTUs, and led to more biomarkers discovered at Phase 2-SM-seq level.
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.