ArticleCommunications biology2024
Cross-comparison of gut metagenomic profiling strategies.
Article in Communications biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Canine Fecal Microbiome Dataset: Ultra-deep Multi-platform Sequencing Across Extraction and Library Protocols.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Longitudinal long-read microbiome profiling in a canine model reveals how age, diet, and birth mode shape gut community dynamics.mSystems · 2026Article
- Standardized and batch effect-independent technologies enable global collaboration in microbiome research.The ISME journal · 2026Article
- The gut microbiota-bile acid-FXR axis in NAFLD: from progression to therapeutic applications.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- Opportunities and Challenges of Multiomics for Discovery and Monitoring of Human Pathogens.Environment & health (Washington, D.C.) · 2025Review
- Gut microbiota and ankylosing spondylitis: current insights and future challenges.Microbial cell (Graz, Austria) · 2025Review
- The activity of miltefosine combined with oral probiotics in a mouse model of cutaneous leishmaniasis.Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz · 2025Article
- The human microbiome in clinical translation: from bench to bedside.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
- Impact of DNA extraction techniques and sequencing approaches on microbial community profiling accuracy.Frontiers in microbiomes · 2025Article
- Cross-comparison of gut metagenomic profiling strategies.Communications biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The rapid advancements in sequencing technologies and bioinformatics have enabled metagenomic research of complex microbial systems, but reliable results depend on consistent laboratory and bioinformatics approaches. Current efforts to identify best practices often focus on optimizing specific steps, making it challenging to understand the influence of each stage on microbial population analysis and compare data across studies. This study evaluated DNA extraction, library construction methodologies, sequencing platforms, and computational approaches using a dog stool sample, two synthetic microbial community mixtures, and various sequencing data sources. Our work, the most comprehensive evaluation of metagenomic methods to date. We developed a software tool, termed minitax, which provides consistent results across the range of platforms and methodologies. Our findings showed that the Zymo Research Quick-DNA HMW MagBead Kit, Illumina DNA Prep library preparation method, and the minitax bioinformatics tool were the most effective for high-quality microbial diversity analysis. However, the effectiveness of pipelines or method combinations is sample-specific, making it difficult to identify a universally optimal approach. Therefore, employing multiple approaches is crucial for obtaining reliable outcomes in microbial systems.
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.