SynthesismBio2025
Blanking on blanks: few insect microbiota studies control for contaminants.
Synthesis in mBio, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Crosstalk in the cold: host-microbe interactions in insect diapause.Annals of the Entomological Society of America · 2026Review
- An ode to the 16S rRNA gene: its history, importance, caveats and future in microbiome research.Microbial genomics · 2026Review
- Differential responses of termite gut bacterial and fungal community to tropical forest conversion.Communications biology · 2026Article
- Insects as a New Source of Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria - Review.Microbial ecology · 2026Review
- Experimental evidence for the absence of a functional gut microbiome in the solitary bee Megachile tosticauda.FEMS microbiology letters · 2026Article
- iSymBase: an integrative functional-genomic platform for ecological exploration of insect symbionts.ISME communications · 2026Article
- Standardized Protocols for Environmental Sample Collection: Minimizing Contamination and Preserving Microbial Community Integrity.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Review
- Intraspecific microbiome dynamics across the life cycle of the milkweed bugMicrobial genomics · 2026Article
- Biohacking the human gut microbiome for precision health and therapeutic innovation.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- You are what your fungus eats: diet shapes the microbial garden of a fungus-growing ant.NPJ biofilms and microbiomes · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research on insect-microbe relationships is booming, with DNA sequencing being the most commonly used method to describe insect microbiota. However, sequencing is vulnerable to contamination, especially when the sample has low microbial biomass. Such low-biomass samples are common across insect taxa, developmental stages, and tissue types. Identifying putative contaminants is essential to distinguish between true microbiota and introduced contaminant DNA. It is therefore important that studies control for contamination, but how often this is done is unknown. To investigate the status quo of contamination control, we undertook a systematic literature review to quantify the prevalence of negative control usage and contamination control across the literature on insect microbiota (specifically bacterial communities) over a 10 year period. Two-thirds of the 243 insect microbiota studies evaluated had not included blanks (negative controls), and only 13.6% of the studies sequenced these blanks and controlled for contamination in their samples. Our findings highlight a major lack of contamination control in the field of insect microbiota research. This result suggests that a number of microbes reported in the literature may be contaminants as opposed to insect-associated microbiota and that more rigorous contamination control is needed to improve research reliability, validity, and reproducibility. Based on our findings, we recommend the previously developed guidelines outlined in the RIDE checklist, with the addition of one more guideline. We refer to this as the RIDES checklist, which stands for Report methodology, Include negative controls, Determine the level of contamination, Explore contamination downstream, and State the amount of off-target amplification.IMPORTANCEOur systematic review reveals a major lack of methodological rigor within the field of research on insect-associated microbiota. The small percentage of studies that control for contamination suggests that an unknown but potentially considerable number of bacteria reported in the literature could be contaminants. The implication of this finding is that true microbiota may be masked or misrepresented, especially in insects with low microbial biomass.
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.