ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluating the efficiency of 16S-ITS-23S operon sequencing for species level resolution in microbial communities.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic Review: Long-Read Sequencing in Algal Studies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- Bioinformatics Strategy for 16s and 23s rRNA Metabarcoding Data.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2026Article
- Dietary Administration of a Soybean Fermented Preparation Reshapes Gut Microbial Community Structure and Colonic Mucosal Features in BALB/c Mice.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Long vs. short read sequencing for microbial ecology of sedimentary environments: a case study from Lake Arnon, Switzerland.FEMS microbiology letters · 2026Article
- Environmental Compatibility ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Why Are Long-Read Sequencing Methods Revolutionizing Microbiome Analysis?Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Modulation of Gut Microbial Composition byNutrients · 2025Article
- A blueprint for contemporary studies of microbiomes.Microbiome · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rapid advancements in long-read sequencing have facilitated species-level microbial profiling through full-length 16S rRNA sequencing (~ 1500 bp), and more notably, by the newer 16S-ITS-23S ribosomal RNA operon (RRN) sequencing (~ 4500 bp). RRN sequencing is emerging as a superior method for species resolution, exceeding the capabilities of short-read and full-length 16S rRNA sequencing. However, being in its early stages of development, RRN sequencing has several underexplored or understudied elements, highlighting the need for a critical and thorough examination of its methodologies. Key areas that require detailed analysis include understanding how primer pairs, sequencing platforms, and classifiers and databases affect the accuracy of species resolution achieved through RRN sequencing. Our study addresses these gaps by evaluating the effect of primer pairs using four RRN primer combinations, and that of sequencing platforms by employing PacBio and Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) systems. Furthermore, two classification methods (Minimap2 and OTU clustering), in combination with four RRN reference databases (MIrROR, rrnDB, and two versions of GROND) were compared to identify consistent and accurate classification methods with RRN sequencing. Here we demonstrate that RRN primer pair choice and sequencing platform do not substantially bias taxonomic profiles for most of the tested mock communities, while classification methods significantly impact the accuracy of species-level assignments. Of the classification methods tested, Minimap2 classifier in combination with the GROND database most consistently provided accurate species-level classification across the communities tested, irrespective of sequencing platform.
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.