ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Comparison of iSeq and Miseq in 16S rRNA sequencing-based human gut microbiome analysis.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Illumina's MiSeq platform is a common approach in 16S-based microbiome analysis. Such usage is self-perpetuating in that many studies seek to employ widely used approaches to facilitate comparison of their results to existing literature. Yet, a range of factors, including cost and equipment availability can necessitate alternate approaches. For example, use of a Nano kit, lowers reagent costs by over 60% while others may only have access to entry-level sequencers such as Illumina's iSeq. The extent to which these approaches would impact results and subsequently conclusions is unknown. Attempting to address this question from the literature is complicated in that various studies not only use distinct cohorts but also differ in the reagents/methodologies to used to isolate DNA and generate sequencing libraries. Hence, we sequenced a single 16S rRNA gene amplicon library derived from 60 fecal samples, collected during a dietary supplement intervention study via MiSeq, MiseqNano, and iSeq. We evaluated platform performance by several key measurements: alpha diversity, beta diversity, taxonomic composition, and differential taxonomic abundance analysis. We found that iSeq outperformed MiSeq-Nano in alpha diversity and differential abundance detection, while MiSeq-Nano provided better taxonomic resolution than iSeq. Most importantly, all platforms showed similar core biological patterns in alpha and beta diversity and overall taxonomic composition. Thus, MiSeq, MiseqNano, and iSeq are likely to yield the same biological conclusions although specific questions and logistical consideration may favor one of these approaches.
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.