ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2026
IRS: iterative reference selection improves normalization of microbiome sequencing data.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Microbiome studies often seek to determine how the absolute abundances of individual taxa change across biological conditions, yet sequencing read counts are sample-specific scaled representations of those abundances. Because sampling depth can differ across samples, fold changes calculated directly from sequencing read counts do not generally represent absolute-abundance fold changes. Normalization methods attempt to account for these between-sample differences in sampling depth, but their accuracy depends on the reference used. In particular, total-sum scaling uses all taxa as the reference and can introduce compositional bias. Reference-based methods instead rely on taxa that are stable across conditions, but contamination of the reference set by differentially abundant (DA) taxa can distort sampling-depth estimation and downstream inference. Here, we present iterative reference selection (IRS), a robust normalization method that iteratively screens and refines a candidate reference set to exclude DA taxa. By deriving a clean reference set, IRS accurately captures between-sample differences in sampling depth and recovers absolute-abundance fold changes. Benchmarking using simulations and datasets with experimental absolute quantification shows that IRS outperforms standard scaling and existing reference-based methods in controlling false discovery rates while maintaining power.
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.