ArticleBMC genomics2025
Impact of RNA extraction on respiratory microbiome analysis using third-generation 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Basic Microbiome Analysis: Analytical Steps from Sampling to Sequencing.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Comparison between metatranscriptomics and viral metagenomics, 16S, and host transcriptomics for comprehensive profiling of the respiratory microbiome and host response.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe respiratory microbiome, which comprises bacteria, fungi, and viruses, plays a crucial role in respiratory health and disease. However, its study is limited by the low microbial biomass in respiratory samples and the dominance of host RNA. Metatranscriptomics offers comprehensive insights into active microbial communities and their interactions with the host but requires optimized RNA extraction protocols for robust and unbiased analysis. This study evaluated two RNA extraction kits—one employing chemical lysis (CL) and another combining chemical and mechanical lysis (CML)—to determine their effectiveness for metatranscriptomic analysis of respiratory samples.
resultsThe CML protocol significantly increased double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) library yields, leading to higher sequencing read counts for both sample types (p < 0.0001). The read length was unaffected by the lysis protocol for the BAL and NPS samples. Taxonomic profiling revealed that CML enhanced the detection of robust microorganisms, such as gram-positive bacteria and fungi, without compromising viral detection.
conclusionsThe CML protocol demonstrated superior recovery of genetic material, particularly for fungi and gram-positive bacteria, making it better suited for comprehensive metatranscriptomic analyses. These findings underscore the need for tailored RNA extraction strategies on the basis of sample type and research objectives. Optimized metatranscriptomic protocols are pivotal for advancing our understanding of the respiratory microbiome and its role in health and disease.
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.