ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Comparison of a long-read amplicon sequencing approach to short-read amplicons for microbiome analysis.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Most microbiome studies to date rely on sequencing short amplicons of the 16S rRNA gene on Illumina's platforms. Because of the short read length, sequences often can be identified reliably only to the family or genus levels. Long read sequencing with whole-length 16S rRNA sequencing can improve taxonomic resolution, but often only to the species level. StrainID is an alternative approach that amplifies a large segment of the ribosomal operon, including the entire 16S rRNA gene, internal transcribed spacer, and a portion of the 23S rRNA gene. This longer amplicon is designed to allow ribotype-level classification. Although studies have demonstrated the utility of StrainID for several sample types, it has not yet been validated for saliva. Here, we compared the performance of StrainID to short read amplicons with saliva samples as well as a synthetic mock DNA community and human and mouse fecal samples. Short reads were amplified with primer pairs appropriate for the corresponding sample type, and were classified with two different taxonomic databases. For both saliva and fecal samples, we found that StrainID performed similarly to short reads overall and demonstrated a key benefit with phylogenetic-based beta diversity tests and taxonomic classification. Our results further build on establishing StrainID as a valid method and specifically validate its use with saliva samples.
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.