ArticleBMC genomics2025
Automated environmental metagenomics using Oxford nanopore sequencing.
Article in BMC genomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLong-read sequencing has revolutionised metagenomics through improved metagenome assembly, taxonomic classification and functional characterisation. Automation can enhance the throughput, reproducibility, and accuracy of library preparation. However, the validation of automated library preparation protocols remains undetermined for metagenomic workflows, which are particularly sensitive to methodological perturbation. Here, we compare long-read metagenomic sequencing of environmental samples through parallel manual and automated protocols.
resultsAlthough automated library preparation led to minor reduction in read and contig lengths, taxonomic classification rate and alpha diversity was slightly higher than manual libraries, including the detection of more rare taxa. Despite this, no significant difference in microbial community structure was identified between manual and automated libraries.
conclusionsDespite minor differences in sequencing and classification metrics, automated and manual library preparation resulted in comparable characterization of environmental community metagenomes. These findings demonstrate the suitability of automation for high-throughput long-read metagenomics, with broad applicability to automated long-read sequencing for improved efficiency and reproducibility.
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.