ArticleBioinformation2021
Benchmarking of 16S rRNA gene databases using known strain sequences.
Article in Bioinformation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of targeted Massively Parallel Sequencing methods for forensic metagenomics.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Interplay of human ABCC11 transporter gene variants with axillary skin microbiome functional genomics.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Assessment of Skimmed Milk Flocculation for Bacterial Enrichment from Water Samples, and Benchmarking of DNA Extraction and 16S rRNA Databases for Metagenomics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Metagenomic profiling pipelines improve taxonomic classification for 16S amplicon sequencing data.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Comparison of four DNA extraction methods for 16s rRNA microbiota profiling of human faecal samples.BMC research notes · 2023Article
- Improved species level bacterial characterization from rhizosphere soil of wilt infected Punica granatum.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- The Skin Microbiome: Current Techniques, Challenges, and Future Directions.Microorganisms · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
16S rRNA gene analysis is the most convenient and robust method for microbiome studies. Inaccurate taxonomic assignment of bacterial strains could have deleterious effects as all downstream analyses rely heavily on the accurate assessment of microbial taxonomy. The use of mock communities to check the reliability of the results has been suggested. However, often the mock communities used in most of the studies represent only a small fraction of taxa and are used mostly as validation of sequencing run to estimate sequencing artifacts. Moreover, a large number of databases and tools available for classification and taxonomic assignment of the 16S rRNA gene make it challenging to select the best-suited method for a particular dataset. In the present study, we used authentic and validly published 16S rRNA gene type strain sequences (full length, V3-V4 region) and analyzed them using a widely used QIIME pipeline along with different parameters of OTU clustering and QIIME compatible databases. Data Analysis Measures (DAM) revealed a high discrepancy in ratifying the taxonomy at different taxonomic hierarchies. Beta diversity analysis showed clear segregation of different DAMs. Limited differences were observed in reference data set analysis using partial (V3-V4) and full-length 16S rRNA gene sequences, which signify the reliability of partial 16S rRNA gene sequences in microbiome studies. Our analysis also highlights common discrepancies observed at various taxonomic levels using various methods and databases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.