ArticleISME communications2025
Microbiome data: tell me which metrics and I will tell you which communities.
Article in ISME communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interactions Between Inbreeding, Fitness and the Bacterial Microbiome inEvolutionary applications · 2026Article
- Bioinformatics Strategy for 16s and 23s rRNA Metabarcoding Data.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2026Article
- Reproducible Emu-Based Workflow for High-Fidelity Soil and Plant Microbiome Profiling on HPC Clusters.Bio-protocol · 2026Article
- The Diversity of Bacterial Symbionts in Major Agricultural Lepidopteran Pests in Australia.International journal of microbiology · 2026Article
- Cross-platform, multi-cohort identification of a caries microbial signature.Journal of oral microbiology · 2026Article
- QIIME2 pipeline for ITS2-based nemabiome sequencing in veterinary species and the importance of analysis parameters.Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
- A comprehensive comparison of web-based tools for amplicon-metagenomic analysis.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In microbial community studies, analyzing diversity is crucial for uncovering ecological complexity. However, the intrinsic characteristics of Next-gen sequencing data challenge the use of Euclidean metrics for estimating proximity and correlation. Consequently, a variety of distance measures have been developed within ecological frameworks. In this study, we compare several of these metrics-including Bray-Curtis, Canberra, Jensen-Shannon, Hellinger, Euclidean, and Aitchison distances-demonstrating how the choice of metric can significantly influence the interpretation of microbial community structures. Among these, Aitchison distance specifically defined for compositional data shows markedly different behavior from the others, highlighting different features related to the data. We consider two real-world examples: the human gut microbiome sampled using 16S rRNA sequencing with multiple measurements for different patients (G-HMP2) and urban sewage environmental metagenomes collected over time at different sites through shotgun sequencing (E-WADES). We show that, for the same dataset-independently on the sequencing technique or on the sampling context-the community structure depends strongly on the choice of specific metrics. This can be explained by the mathematical properties of the chosen metrics and the specific characteristics of microbiome data, namely their high heterogeneity in species abundance. This provides clear insights into how distance metrics influence interpretation and assists in choosing the most appropriate one for the study objectives.
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.