Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41328030›Full record

ArticleGut microbes2025

Impact of data compositionality on the detection of microbiota responses.

Brandon Hickman, Katri Korpela

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gut microbes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Brandon HickmanHuman Microbiome Research Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-8580-5005
Katri KorpelaHuman Microbiome Research Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-5031-2713

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) data usage is widespread, but its compositional nature poses challenges. We evaluated four normalization methods (relative abundance, CLR, TMM, DESeq2) for identifying true signals in compositional microbiota data using simulations. Two experiments were conducted: one with only increases in specific taxa, and a 1:1 increase/decrease in specific taxa. Simulated sequencing produced compositional data, which were normalized using the four methods. The study compared absolute abundance data and the normalized compositional data using variance explained and false discovery rates. All normalization methods showed decreased variance explained and increased false positives and negatives compared to absolute abundance data. CLR, TMM, and DESeq2 did not improve over relative abundance data and sometimes worsened false discovery rates. The study highlights that false positives and negatives are common in compositional NGS datasets, and current normalization methods do not consistently address these issues. Compositionality artefacts should be considered when interpreting NGS results and obtaining absolute abundances of features/taxa is recommended to distinguish biological signals from artefacts.

Indexed as

BacteriaGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMetagenomicsMicrobiotaComputational BiologyComputer SimulationHumansCompositional datafalse discovery ratenext generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID41328030
PMCPMC12674323

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.