Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41333804›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2025

Comparative analysis of full-length 16s ribosomal RNA gene sequencing in human oropharyngeal swabs using primer sets with different degrees of degeneracy.

Christian Waechter, Janna-Nele Wilkens, Leon Fehse, Dominik Heider, Kiarash Sassani, Georgios Chatzis, Sebastian Weyand, Sabine Pankuweit, Ulrich Luesebrink, Muhidien Soufi and 4 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

14 authors.

Christian WaechterFaculty of Medicine, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Janna-Nele WilkensDepartment of Cardiology, University Hospital Marburg, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Leon FehseInstitute of Medical Informatics , University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Dominik HeiderInstitute of Medical Informatics , University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Kiarash SassaniDepartment of Cardiology, University Hospital Greifswald, University Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Georgios ChatzisDepartment of Cardiology, University Hospital Marburg, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Sebastian WeyandDepartment of Cardiology, Ostalb-Clinic, University of Ulm, Aalen, Germany.
Sabine PankuweitDepartment of Cardiology, University Hospital Marburg, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Ulrich LuesebrinkDepartment of Cardiology, University Hospital Marburg, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Muhidien SoufiDepartment of Cardiology, University Hospital Marburg, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Jochen PölingDepartment 1, Max Planck Institute for Heart and Lung Research, Bad Nauheim, Germany.
Thomas BraunDepartment 1, Max Planck Institute for Heart and Lung Research, Bad Nauheim, Germany.
Felix Ausbuettel *Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Marburg, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Volker Ruppert *Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Marburg, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Full-length 16S rRNA gene sequencing using nanopore technology has become increasingly relevant for profiling complex microbial communities, including the human oral microbiome. Primer selection plays a critical role in amplification bias and taxonomic resolution, yet remains insufficiently investigated for oropharyngeal samples. Methods: We conducted a comparative analysis of two primer sets with differing degrees of degeneracy - Oxford Nanopores (ONT) standard 27F primer (27F-I) and a more degenerate variant (27F-II) - for full-length 16S rRNA gene sequencing of 80 human oropharyngeal swab samples using ONTs MinION Mk1C. Alpha diversity and taxonomic profiles were statistically compared between primer sets and benchmarked against a large-scale salivary microbiome dataset (n=1,989) from healthy individuals. Results: Primer choice significantly impacted microbial community composition and diversity. The more degenerate primer set 27F-II yielded significantly higher alpha diversity (Shannon index: 2.684 vs. 1.850; p < 0.001) and detected a broader range of taxa across all phyla. The taxonomic profiles generated with 27F-II strongly correlated with the reference dataset (Pearson's r = 0.86, p < 0.0001), whereas profiles generated with 27F-I showed weak correlation (r = 0.49, p = 0.06). 27F-I overrepresented Proteobacteria and underrepresented key genera such as Prevotella, Faecalibacterium, and Porphyromonas. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that primer degeneracy has a substantial effect on taxonomic resolution and biodiversity estimates in oropharyngeal 16S rRNA gene sequencing. The more degenerate 27F-II primer set seams to more faithfully captures the complexity of the human oropharyngeal microbiome and aligns more closely with population-level reference data. These results underscore the importance of careful primer selection and support the adoption of degenerate primers as a methodological standard in nanopore-based oral microbiome research.

Indexed as

BacteriaDNA PrimersMicrobiotaOropharynxRNA, Ribosomal, 16SDNA, BacterialHumansSalivaSequence Analysis, DNADNA, BacterialDNA PrimersRNA, Ribosomal, 16S16S rRNAhuman oropharyngeal microbiomeMinION Mk1Cnanopore sequencingnext-generation sequencing (NGS)oral microbiomeOxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT)

Identifiers

PMID41333804
PMCPMC12665744

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.