Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41592132›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2026

PCR bias impacts microbiome ecological analyses.

Dharmik R Rathod, Justin D Silverman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Design, processing, and modeling for longitudinal multiomics microbiome data.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Dharmik R RathodCollege of Information Sciences and Technology, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Justin D SilvermanCollege of Information Sciences and Technology, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3063-2098

Funding

Medical Scientist Training Program Training GrantT32GM145449 · NIGMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI Christopher D Kontos · 2022 to 2026
$6.6M
DMS/NIGMS 1: Addressing Measurement Limitations for Sequence Count DataR01GM148972 · NIGMS · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, THE · PI SILVERMAN, JUSTIN D · 2022 to 2024
$600k
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM148972NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM145449
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is a critical step in amplicon-based microbial community profiling, allowing the selective amplification of marker genes such as 16S rRNA from environmental or host-associated samples. Despite its widespread use, PCR is known to introduce amplification bias, where some DNA sequences are preferentially amplified over others due to factors such as primer-template mismatches, sequence GC content, and secondary structures. Although these biases are known to affect transcript abundance, their implications for ecological metrics remain poorly understood. In this study, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of how PCR-bias influences both within-samples (α-diversity) and between-sample (β-diversity) analyses. We show that perturbation-invariant diversity measures remain unaffected by PCR bias, but widely used metrics such as Shannon diversity and Weighted-Unifrac are sensitive. To address this, we provide theoretical and empirical insight into how PCR-induced bias varies across ecological analyses and community structures, and we offer practical guidance on when bias-correction methods should be applied. Our findings highlight the importance of selecting appropriate diversity metrics for PCR-based microbial ecology workflows and offer guidance for improving the reliability of diversity analyses.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaPolymerase Chain ReactionBiasComputational BiologyRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID41592132
PMCPMC12885373

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.