Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40361240›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental microbiome2025

The unresolved struggle of 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing: a benchmarking analysis of clustering and denoising methods.

Mohamed Fares, Engy K Tharwat, Ilse Cleenwerck, Pieter Monsieurs, Rob Van Houdt, Peter Vandamme, Mohamed El-Hadidi, Mohamed Mysara

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental microbiome, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Efficacy ofFrontiers in nutrition · 2026
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Effects ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

8 authors.

Mohamed Fares *Bioinformatics Group, Center for Informatics Science, School of Information Technology and Computer Science, Nile University, Giza, Egypt.
Engy K Tharwat *Bioinformatics Group, Center for Informatics Science, School of Information Technology and Computer Science, Nile University, Giza, Egypt.
Ilse CleenwerckLaboratory of Microbiology, Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology, Faculty of Sciences, BCCM/LMG Bacteria Collection, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Pieter MonsieursDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Rob Van HoudtMicrobiology Unit, Nuclear Medical Applications, Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCK CEN), Mol, Belgium.
Peter VandammeLaboratory for Microbiology, Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Mohamed El-HadidiBioinformatics Group, Center for Informatics Science, School of Information Technology and Computer Science, Nile University, Giza, Egypt.
Mohamed MysaraBioinformatics Group, Center for Informatics Science, School of Information Technology and Computer Science, Nile University, Giza, Egypt. MMaysara@nu.edu.eg.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing has become an indispensable method for microbiome studies, this analysis is not error-free, and remains prone to several biases and errors. Numerous algorithms have been developed to eliminate these errors and consolidate the output into distance-based Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) or denoising-based Amplicon Sequence Variants (ASVs). An objective comparison between them has been obscured by various experimental setups and parameters. In the present study, we conducted a comprehensive benchmarking analysis of the error rates, microbial composition, over-merging/over-splitting of reference sequences, and diversity analyses using the most complex mock community, comprising 227 bacterial strains and the Mockrobiota database. Using unified preprocessing steps, we were able to compare DADA2, Deblur, MED, UNOISE3, UPARSE, DGC (Distance-based Greedy Clustering), AN (Average Neighborhood), and Opticlust objectively.

resultsASV algorithms-led by DADA2- resulted in having a consistent output, yet suffered from over-splitting, while OTU algorithms-led by UPARSE-achieved clusters with lower errors, yet with more over-merging. Notably, UPARSE and DADA2 showed the closest resemblance to the intended microbial community, especially when considering measures for alpha and beta diversity.

conclusionOur unbiased comparative evaluation examined the performance of eight algorithms dedicated to the analysis of 16S rRNA amplicon sequences with a wide range of mock datasets. Our analysis shed light on the pros and cons of each algorithm and the accuracy of the produced OTUs or ASVs. The utilization of the most complex mock community and the benchmarking comparison presented here offer a framework for the comparison between OTU/ASV algorithms and an objective method for the assessment of new tools and algorithms.

Indexed as

16S rRNA amplicon sequencingAmplicon sequence variants (ASVs)Denoising.Operational taxonomical units (OTUs)

Identifiers

PMID40361240
PMCPMC12076876

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.