ArticleMicrobiome2026
Whole metagenome sequencing: not deep enough for complete microbial function recovery.
Article in Microbiome, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unique Oral Microbiota Signatures and Neurocognitive Function in Adolescents with and without Perinatally Acquired HIV.Research square · 2026Article
- Article
- Moving from a taxonomic to a functional perspective in global microbiome analysis requires optimizing multiplexing ratios.mSystems · 2026Article
- 16S rRNA sequence captures microbial functional potential.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhole metagenome shotgun sequencing (WMS) is widely used to profile microbial function. However, technical variability in sequencing and analysis often obscures true biological patterns. Large-scale studies are particularly susceptible to batch effects, such as differences in sequencing depth and platform and annotation strategies, as well as sample-to-flow-cell assignments. However, the relative effects of these factors on functional inference in such studies have yet to be systematically evaluated. We analyzed oral-rinse WMS data from 671 Nigerian youths aged 9-18, sequenced on two Illumina platforms. Microbial molecular functionality encoded in these data was annotated using the mi-faser/Fusion pipeline, to capture the broad functional repertoire, and HUMAnN 3/EC numbers pipeline to characterize curated enzymatic activities. We then quantified how technical factors and batch effects shaped the recovery of microbial functionality.
resultsThree findings of our work were most salient. First, we observed that the choice of annotation strategy traded off between breadth and specificity of functional coverage. Second, we found that low-prevalence functions were disproportionately lost at shallow sequencing depths, indicating that in, e.g., case-control studies with few representatives of the minor class, sequencing depth could critically impact study resolution. Finally, using our newly developed model relating sequencing depth to functional recovery, we demonstrated that increasing sequencing depth does not directly or proportionally improve functional recall. That is, at as little as 10% of this study's sequencing depth, 30% of the estimated complete microbiome functional repertoire was detectable. However, even at the full depth used in this study, we were only able to recover an estimated 60% of that complete functional repertoire. We further showed that despite biomes differences in functional diversity and host contamination levels (e.g., soil, fecal), incomplete functional recovery at commonly used sequencing depths was consistently observed.
conclusionsTogether, these findings and our depth-to-function mapping framework provide practical guidelines for the design and interpretation of WMS studies. Coordinating sequencing depth planning with annotation strategy, experimental design, and rigorous batch control is thus essential for robust detection of microbial functions and for ensuring reproducible microbiome insights. Video Abstract.
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.