ArticleInternational journal of microbiology2025
Benchmarking 16S rRNA Gene-Based Approaches to Bacterial Taxonomy Assignment Based on Amplicon Sequencing With Illumina and Oxford Nanopore.
Article in International journal of microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sea Lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) Harbour Putative Fish Pathogens: Insights From Illumina and Nanopore Sequencing.Journal of fish diseases · 2026Article
- A comparative analysis of gut microbiome in dogs using short- and long-reads of 16S rRNA sequences reveals workflow-dependent biases.Veterinary research communications · 2026Article
- Full-Length 16S rRNA Amplicon Sequencing for the Simple and Simultaneous Detection of Multiple Probiotic Species in Commercial Products.Journal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Effects of short-term application of organic manure on the growth of forage maize (Zea mays L. cv. Kwangpyeongok) and soil bacterial communities.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research investigating the microbial community of an ecosystem or animal can involve a range of methodologies, including sequencing technology, bioinformatic software and taxonomy database. Researchers may utilise short-read sequencing on Illumina MiSeq or long-read sequencing on platforms like Oxford Nanopore to obtain different research outcomes, for example, enhanced identification of microbes at species or strain level with Nanopore. However, replicability across these techniques is not well studied, while the technique used to process reads into microbial taxa may also result in different taxonomy assignments. In this study, we analyse an existing, real-world dataset which had low genus-level identification with Illumina sequencing and analysis with the SILVA database and compare sequencing with Nanopore on the same samples. We pair this with multiple bioinformatic approaches and taxonomy databases for each sequencing technique to compare phylum- and genus-level assignments and use mock communities to identify which combination of sequencing technique, bioinformatic approach and taxonomy database provides the most accurate taxonomy. We found that Nanopore reads processed with either utilised bioinformatic approach or taxonomy database provided higher accuracy in the assignment of a mock community than any technique combination with Illumina. We also found that the Top 10 genera assigned to a real-world database were substantially different across technique combinations and varied more by taxonomy database than either bioinformatic approach or sequencing technology.
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.