ArticleEnvironmental microbiome2025
Standardizing microbiome research: interlaboratory validation of SOPs for sample preparation and DNA extraction from food and environmental ecosystems.
Article in Environmental microbiome, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of Stability of Preservation Techniques for Strawberry Soil Microbiomes: Exploring the Biotechnological Relevance for Sustainable Agriculture.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Gut and respiratory microbiomes in asthma and allergic diseases: a narrative review of mechanistic insights, gut-lung axis interactions and therapeutic opportunities.Translational pediatrics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
33 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMicrobiome research has expanded rapidly, however, lack of standardized and validated protocols for microbiome sampling and DNA extraction has hindered the reproducibility and comparability of studies. The SUS-MIRRI.IT project aimed to prepare and validate Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for microbiome analysis across diverse ecosystems, including fermented foods, soils, waters, and more. To validate these protocols, 15 Italian research units (RUs) participated in an interlaboratory trial on 120 samples (liquid and solid fermented foods, waters, and soils). Metataxonomic sequencing was performed using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing to assess the reproducibility of the protocols. The interlaboratory trial involved distributing homogenized samples to participating RUs and evaluating performance both between and within RUs. This was done by comparing results obtained from DNA extraction and amplicon-based sequencing.
resultsThe results demonstrated high reproducibility of the procedures suggested in the SOPs across different sample types, with no significant differences in microbial diversity or composition between biological replicates or research units. DNA recovery was generally consistent, with minor variations observed in solid samples.
conclusionsThis study underlines the importance of standardized protocols in microbiome research. The validated Standard Operating Procedures developed by the SUS-MIRRI.IT project demonstrate robustness and reproducibility across diverse ecosystems, providing a foundation for future microbiome studies. The adoption of these protocols will enhance data comparability and support large-scale meta-analyses in food systems microbiome research.
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.