ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2025
Deciphering the impact of contaminating microbiota in DNA extraction reagents on metagenomic next-generation sequencing workflows.
Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Broad-spectrum targeted next-generation sequencing: is it ready for routine deployment in intensive care units for severe pneumonia?Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Methodological bias shapes the interpretation of the urinary microbiome in low-biomass systems.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The widespread adoption of metagenomic next-generation sequencing has revolutionized microbial detection, yet contaminating DNA in laboratory reagents poses significant challenges for result interpretation. This study investigated microbial contamination profiles across four commercial DNA extraction reagent brands (M, Q, R, and Z) and assessed batch-to-batch variability. Extraction blanks were generated using molecular-grade water or ZymoBIOMICS Spike-in Control I as input materials. Analysis revealed distinct background microbiota profiles between brands, with some containing common pathogenic species that could affect clinical interpretation. Notably, background contamination patterns varied significantly between different lots of the same brand, highlighting the need for lot-specific microbiota profiling. Site-specific environmental contaminants were identified through analysis of 30 control samples from a single study site. Additionally, comparison of blood samples from healthy individuals with control samples suggested no evidence of a consistent blood microbiome, suggesting that "extraction blanks" may serve as negative controls in clinical metagenomic testing of sterile liquid biopsy samples. These findings emphasize the importance of including negative controls in every run and underscore the need for manufacturers to provide comprehensive background microbiota data for each reagent lot to optimize clinical interpretation and minimize false-positive results. IMPORTANCE: Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) has revolutionized pathogen detection and microbiome studies, but contamination from DNA extraction reagents remains a critical challenge. This study highlights the significant variability in background microbiota profiles across reagent brands and manufacturing lots, emphasizing the need for manufacturers to provide detailed contamination profiles. Our findings underscore the importance of implementing extraction blanks as standard controls and incorporating bioinformatics tools to account for background noise. These measures are essential to enhance the reliability of mNGS results and prevent diagnostic errors, particularly in clinical settings where contamination could mask or mimic pathogen signals. Additionally, our confirmation that healthy blood lacks a consistent microbiome helps streamline control selection in clinical testing protocols, potentially reducing costs and complexity in clinical mNGS workflows.
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.