ArticlePLoS computational biology2026
Integrative analysis across metagenomic taxonomic classifiers: A case study of the gut microbiome in aging and longevity in the Integrative Longevity Omics Study.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There are various well-validated taxonomic classifiers for profiling shotgun metagenomics data, with two popular methods, MetaPhlAn (marker-gene-based) and Kraken (k-mer-based), at the forefront of many studies. Despite differences between classification approaches and calls for the development of consensus methods, most analyses of shotgun metagenomics data for microbiome studies use a single taxonomic classifier. In this study, we compare inferences from two broadly used classifiers, MetaPhlAn4 and Kraken2, applied to stool metagenomic samples from participants in the Integrative Longevity Omics study to measure associations of taxonomic diversity and relative abundance with age, replicating analyses in an independent cohort. We also introduce consensus and meta-analytic approaches to compare and integrate results from multiple classifiers. While many results are consistent across the two classifiers, we find classifier-specific inferences that would be lost when using one classifier alone. Both classifiers captured similar age-associated changes in diversity across cohorts, with variability in species alpha diversity driven by differences by classifier. When using a correlated meta-analysis approach (AdjMaxP) across classifiers, differential abundance analysis captures more age-associated taxa, including 17 taxa robustly age-associated across cohorts. This study emphasizes the value of employing multiple classifiers and recommends novel approaches that facilitate the integration of results from multiple methodologies.
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.