Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40970702›Full record

ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2025

How sequencing technology shapes our understanding of river water microbiomes and resistomes: a comparative study.

Jialin Hu, J Chris Blazier, Anna Gitter, Lucas F Gregory, Terry J Gentry

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Jialin HuDepartment of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4818-9183
J Chris BlazierTexas A&M Institute for Genome Sciences and Society, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.
Anna GitterSchool of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, El Paso, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4642-0636
Lucas F GregoryTexas Water Resources Institute, Texas A&M AgriLife Research, College Station, Texas, USA.
Terry J GentryDepartment of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.

Funding

National Institute of Food and Agriculture 8092-0Texas State Water and Soil Conservation Board 22-50
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

River ecosystems are vital for supporting biodiversity and supplying freshwater, but are increasingly impacted by microbial pollution, including the spread of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs), which poses growing public health concerns. While high-throughput sequencing technologies have advanced our ability to study microbial communities and resistomes, their varying capabilities and biases require comparative analysis. In this study, we compared three sequencing approaches-Illumina 16S rRNA amplicon, Illumina shotgun metagenomics, and Oxford Nanopore-based long-read metagenomics-to profile microbial communities, ARGs, and virulence factors (VFs) in 48 river water samples. All methods identified Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria as dominant phyla, but substantial differences emerged at finer taxonomic levels. Long-read metagenomics and 16S data showed greater consistency at the genus level, while Illumina metagenomics differed, detecting more potential pathogens and fewer native freshwater taxa. For ARG and VF profiling, unassembled Illumina data yielded higher diversity and abundance, but assembled Illumina data showed comparable results to long-read metagenomics data in terms of dominant genes and host associations. Although Illumina provides high sensitivity, the use of short reads and associated assembly limitations can compromise functional accuracy. In contrast, long-read metagenomics facilitates gene-level resolution and direct host linkage, providing a more comprehensive understanding of environmental microbiomes. Our findings highlight the strengths and limitations of each method and support Oxford Nanopore technology (ONT)-based long-read metagenomic sequencing as a cost-effective and informative tool for high-resolution taxonomic and functional analysis of complex environmental samples. IMPORTANCE: Accurate characterization of microbial communities and their functional traits, such as antibiotic resistance, is essential for evaluating water quality and associated public health risks. However, the selection of sequencing methods can substantially influence the detection and interpretation of microbial community composition and functional potential in environmental samples. By directly comparing amplicon, short-read metagenomic, and long-read metagenomic sequencing across 48 freshwater samples collected across different sites and time points, this study builds upon earlier work that typically focused on only two methods or less complex communities. It provides a comparative evaluation of three widely used sequencing approaches, demonstrating how methodological differences affect the resolution and reliability of taxonomic and functional profiling in complex environmental microbiomes. By highlighting the strengths and limitations of each platform, these findings enhance our understanding of how sequencing strategy shapes environmental microbiome analyses and contributes to evidence-based method selection in environmental microbiology and antimicrobial resistance monitoring.

Indexed as

BacteriaHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMetagenomicsMicrobiotaRiversWater MicrobiologyRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSequence Analysis, DNARNA, Ribosomal, 16Santibiotic resistanceaquatic microbiomemetagenomicsNanoporevirulence factors

Identifiers

PMID40970702
PMCPMC12542686

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.