Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40843178›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of microbiology2025

Benchmarking 16S rRNA Gene-Based Approaches to Bacterial Taxonomy Assignment Based on Amplicon Sequencing With Illumina and Oxford Nanopore.

Carmen Hoffbeck, Danielle M R L Middleton, Nicola J Nelson, Michael W Taylor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Carmen HoffbeckSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0685-8505
Danielle M R L MiddletonManaaki Whenua - Landcare Research, Lincoln, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9673-0136
Nicola J NelsonSchool of Biological Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1641-6030
Michael W TaylorSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0463-7813

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID40843178
PMCPMC12367389

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.