ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2025
Comparative evaluation of sequencing technologies and primer sets for mouse gut microbiota profiling.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Characterization of dysbiosis patterns in gut microbiota of digestive system cancers: an umbrella review.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Pooled it
- Reinventing malaria control: hierarchical intervention strategies for African settings based on the microbiota-barrier-innate immunity axis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Comparative evaluation of sequencing platforms: Pacific Biosciences, Oxford Nanopore Technologies, and Illumina for 16S rRNA-based soil microbiome profiling.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Beneficial perspective onFrontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Impact of DNA extraction techniques and sequencing approaches on microbial community profiling accuracy.Frontiers in 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Advancements in sequencing technologies, such as Illumina and Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT), have significantly improved microbiome research. However, variations in sequencing platforms, primer selection, and DNA quality may influence microbial diversity assessments, particularly in studies of gut microbiota. This study systematically evaluates these factors in mouse gut microbiota analysis, comparing 16S rRNA gene sequencing and metagenome sequencing (MS) across both platforms. Results: Our findings highlight the critical influence of primer selection on 16S rRNA sequencing results, with certain primer combinations detecting unique taxa that others miss. Despite these variations in taxonomic resolution, all tested primer sets consistently revealed significant differences between experimental groups, indicating that key microbial shifts induced by bacterial cultures remain detectable regardless of primer choice. A comparative analysis of Illumina and ONT 16S rRNA sequencing revealed notable differences in microbial diversity profiling, with ONT capturing a broader range of taxa. In contrast, MS on both platforms showed a high degree of correlation, indicating that ONT sequencing errors have minimal impact on taxonomic diversity estimations. Furthermore, the type of extracted DNA (high molecular weight vs. standard DNA) had little on microbial diversity outcomes, underscoring the robustness of these sequencing technologies. Conclusion: These results highlight the advantages and limitations of different sequencing strategies in microbiota research. While 16S rRNA sequencing remains a cost-effective tool for assessing bacterial diversity, MS provides superior taxonomic resolution and more precise species identification. Our study advocates for a hybrid approach that combines multiple sequencing technologies to achieve a more comprehensive and accurate representation of microbial communities.
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.