↓ Skip to main content

Optimizing methods and dodging pitfalls in microbiome research

Overview of attention for article published in Microbiome, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
113 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
411 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
835 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Optimizing methods and dodging pitfalls in microbiome research
Published in
Microbiome, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40168-017-0267-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dorothy Kim, Casey E. Hofstaedter, Chunyu Zhao, Lisa Mattei, Ceylan Tanes, Erik Clarke, Abigail Lauder, Scott Sherrill-Mix, Christel Chehoud, Judith Kelsen, Máire Conrad, Ronald G. Collman, Robert Baldassano, Frederic D. Bushman, Kyle Bittinger

Abstract

Research on the human microbiome has yielded numerous insights into health and disease, but also has resulted in a wealth of experimental artifacts. Here, we present suggestions for optimizing experimental design and avoiding known pitfalls, organized in the typical order in which studies are carried out. We first review best practices in experimental design and introduce common confounders such as age, diet, antibiotic use, pet ownership, longitudinal instability, and microbial sharing during cohousing in animal studies. Typically, samples will need to be stored, so we provide data on best practices for several sample types. We then discuss design and analysis of positive and negative controls, which should always be run with experimental samples. We introduce a convenient set of non-biological DNA sequences that can be useful as positive controls for high-volume analysis. Careful analysis of negative and positive controls is particularly important in studies of samples with low microbial biomass, where contamination can comprise most or all of a sample. Lastly, we summarize approaches to enhancing experimental robustness by careful control of multiple comparisons and to comparing discovery and validation cohorts. We hope the experimental tactics summarized here will help researchers in this exciting field advance their studies efficiently while avoiding errors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 113 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 835 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Estonia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 831 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 195 23%
Researcher 160 19%
Student > Master 110 13%
Student > Bachelor 54 6%
Other 44 5%
Other 111 13%
Unknown 161 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 206 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 167 20%
Immunology and Microbiology 85 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 63 8%
Environmental Science 16 2%
Other 98 12%
Unknown 200 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 75. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 November 2023.
All research outputs
#576,550
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
#153
of 1,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,765
of 325,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
#6
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,790 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,855 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.