Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40463435›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2025

Comparative evaluation of sequencing technologies and primer sets for mouse gut microbiota profiling.

Aleksandra Strokach, Polina Zoruk, Daria Boldyreva, Maxim Morozov, Evgenii Olekhnovich, Vladimir Veselovsky, Vladislav Babenko, Oksana Selezneva, Natalia Zakharevich, Andrey Larin and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Beneficial perspective onFrontiers in immunology · 2025
    Review
  5. 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

18 authors.

Aleksandra Strokach *Lopukhin Federal Research and Clinical Center of Physical-Chemical Medicine of Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Polina Zoruk *Lopukhin Federal Research and Clinical Center of Physical-Chemical Medicine of Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Daria BoldyrevaLopukhin Federal Research and Clinical Center of Physical-Chemical Medicine of Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Maxim MorozovLopukhin Federal Research and Clinical Center of Physical-Chemical Medicine of Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Evgenii OlekhnovichLopukhin Federal Research and Clinical Center of Physical-Chemical Medicine of Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Vladimir VeselovskyLopukhin Federal Research and Clinical Center of Physical-Chemical Medicine of Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Vladislav BabenkoLopukhin Federal Research and Clinical Center of Physical-Chemical Medicine of Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Oksana SeleznevaLopukhin Federal Research and Clinical Center of Physical-Chemical Medicine of Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Natalia ZakharevichLopukhin Federal Research and Clinical Center of Physical-Chemical Medicine of Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Andrey LarinLopukhin Federal Research and Clinical Center of Physical-Chemical Medicine of Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Severina KoldmanLopukhin Federal Research and Clinical Center of Physical-Chemical Medicine of Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Vail KoldmanLopukhin Federal Research and Clinical Center of Physical-Chemical Medicine of Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Maya OdorskayaVavilov Institute of General Genetics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia.
Roman YunesVavilov Institute of General Genetics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia.
Vladislav PavlovEngelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia.
Anna KudryavtsevaEngelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia.
Valeriy DanilenkoVavilov Institute of General Genetics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia.
Ksenia KliminaLopukhin Federal Research and Clinical Center of Physical-Chemical Medicine of Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

gut microbiotahigh molecular weight DNAIllumina sequencingmetagenome sequencingmicrobial diversityOxford Nanopore Technologiesprimer combinationsequencing technologies

Identifiers

PMID40463435
PMCPMC12130029

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.