Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39998222›Full record

SynthesismBio2025

Blanking on blanks: few insect microbiota studies control for contaminants.

Elisabeth M Williamson, Tobin J Hammer, Katja Hogendoorn, Raphael Eisenhofer

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Crosstalk in the cold: host-microbe interactions in insect diapause.Annals of the Entomological Society of America · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
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

4 authors.

Elisabeth M WilliamsonSchool of Agriculture, Food and Wine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5936-8665
Tobin J HammerDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, California, USA.
Katja HogendoornSchool of Agriculture, Food and Wine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Raphael EisenhoferCentre for Evolutionary Hologenomics, Globe Institute, The University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-3843-0749

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

DNA ContaminationInsectaMicrobiotaAnimalsBacteria16Sbacteriacontaminationkitomemicrobiomesymbionts

Identifiers

PMID39998222
PMCPMC11980574

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.