Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40388544›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Benchmarking Differential Abundance Tests for 16S microbiome sequencing data using simulated data based on experimental templates.

Eva Kohnert, Clemens Kreutz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Eva KohnertInstitute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0009-0007-9976-2441
Clemens KreutzInstitute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Differential abundance (DA) analysis of metagenomic microbiome data is essential for understanding microbial community dynamics across various environments and hosts. Identifying microorganisms that differ significantly in abundance between conditions (e.g., health vs. disease) is crucial for insights into environmental adaptations, disease development, and host health. However, the statistical interpretation of microbiome data is challenged by inherent sparsity and compositional nature, necessitating tailored DA methods. This benchmarking study aims to simulate synthetic 16S microbiome data using metaSPARSim (Patuzzi I, Baruzzo G, Losasso C, Ricci A, Di Camillo B. MetaSPARSim: a 16S rRNA gene sequencing count data simulator. BMC Bioinformatics. 2019;20:416. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-019-2882-6 PMID: 31757204) MIDASim (He M, Zhao N, Satten GA. MIDASim: a fast and simple simulator for realistic microbiome data. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.23.533996), and sparseDOSSA2 (Ma S, Ren B, Mallick H, Moon YS, Schwager E, Maharjan S, et al. A statistical model for describing and simulating microbial community profiles. PLOS Comput Biol. 2021;17(9):e1008913. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008913 PMID: 34516542) , leveraging 38 real-world experimental templates (S3 Table) previously utilized in a benchmark study comparing DA tools. These datasets, drawn from diverse environments such as human gut, soil, and marine habitats, serve as the foundation for our simulation efforts. We employ the same 14 DA tests that were previously used with the same experimental data in benchmark studies alongside 8 DA tests that were developed subsequently. Initially, we will generate synthetic data closely mirroring the experimental datasets, incorporating a known truth to cover a broad range of real-world data characteristics. This approach allows us to assess the ability of DA methods to recover known true differential abundances. We will further simulate datasets by altering sparsity, effect size, and sample size, thus creating a comprehensive collection for applying the 22 DA tests. The outcomes, focusing on sensitivities and specificities, will provide insights into the performance of DA tests and their dependencies on sparsity, effect size, and sample size. Additionally, we will calculate data characteristics (S1 and S2 Table) for each simulated dataset and use a multiple regression to identify informative data characteristics influencing test performance. Our prior study, where we used simulated data without incorporating a known truth, demonstrated the feasibility of using synthetic data to validate experimental findings. This current study aims to enhance our understanding by systematically evaluating the impact of known truth incorporation on DA test performance, thereby providing further information for the selection and application of DA methods in microbiome research.

Indexed as

MetagenomicsMicrobiotaRNA, Ribosomal, 16SBenchmarkingComputational BiologyComputer SimulationHumansRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID40388544
PMCPMC12088514

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.