Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37633998›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Metagenomic profiling pipelines improve taxonomic classification for 16S amplicon sequencing data.

Aubrey R Odom, Tyler Faits, Eduardo Castro-Nallar, Keith A Crandall, W Evan Johnson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Aubrey R Odom *Division of Computational Biomedicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Tyler Faits *Division of Computational Biomedicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Eduardo Castro-NallarDepartamento de Microbiología, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad de Talca, Campus Talca, Avda. Lircay S/N, Talca, Chile.
Keith A CrandallDepartment of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Computational Biology Institute, Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
W Evan JohnsonDivision of Infectious Disease, Center for Data Science, Rutgers University - New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA. w.evan.johnson@rutgers.edu.
Boston University · USMilken Institute · USRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USUniversity of Talca · CL

Funding

Removing batch effects in high-throughput biomedical studiesR01GM127430 · NIGMS · RUTGERS BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES · PI William Evan Johnson · 2018 to 2026
$2.4M
Signature of profiling and staging the progression of TB from infection to disease.R21AI154387 · NIAID · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI JOHNSON, WILLIAM EVAN · 2020 to 2021
$468k
Microbiome-based biomarkers and models of lung cancer development and treatmentR21CA260382 · NCI · RUTGERS BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES · PI JOHNSON, WILLIAM EVAN, SEGRE, DANIEL · 2022 to 2023
$377k
NCI NIH HHS R21 CA260382NIAID NIH HHS R21 AI154387NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM127430
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most experiments studying bacterial microbiomes rely on the PCR amplification of all or part of the gene for the 16S rRNA subunit, which serves as a biomarker for identifying and quantifying the various taxa present in a microbiome sample. Several computational methods exist for analyzing 16S amplicon sequencing. However, the most-used bioinformatics tools cannot produce high quality genus-level or species-level taxonomic calls and may underestimate the potential accuracy of these calls. We used 16S sequencing data from mock bacterial communities to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of several bioinformatics pipelines and genomic reference libraries used for microbiome analyses, concentrating on measuring the accuracy of species-level taxonomic assignments of 16S amplicon reads. We evaluated the tools DADA2, QIIME 2, Mothur, PathoScope 2, and Kraken 2 in conjunction with reference libraries from Greengenes, SILVA, Kraken 2, and RefSeq. Profiling tools were compared using publicly available mock community data from several sources, comprising 136 samples with varied species richness and evenness, several different amplified regions within the 16S rRNA gene, and both DNA spike-ins and cDNA from collections of plated cells. PathoScope 2 and Kraken 2, both tools designed for whole-genome metagenomics, outperformed DADA2, QIIME 2 using the DADA2 plugin, and Mothur, which are theoretically specialized for 16S analyses. Evaluations of reference libraries identified the SILVA and RefSeq/Kraken 2 Standard libraries as superior in accuracy compared to Greengenes. These findings support PathoScope and Kraken 2 as fully capable, competitive options for genus- and species-level 16S amplicon sequencing data analysis, whole genome sequencing, and metagenomics data tools.

Indexed as

CercozoaMicrobiotaPolyarteritis NodosaAgammaglobulinemiaBone PlatesHumansMetagenomeMetagenomicsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSevere Combined ImmunodeficiencyRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID37633998
PMCPMC10460424
OpenAlexW4386193794

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.