↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating the accuracy of amplicon-based microbiome computational pipelines on simulated human gut microbial communities

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
22 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 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
Evaluating the accuracy of amplicon-based microbiome computational pipelines on simulated human gut microbial communities
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1690-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan L. Golob, Elisa Margolis, Noah G. Hoffman, David N. Fredricks

Abstract

Microbiome studies commonly use 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing to characterize microbial communities. Errors introduced at multiple steps in this process can affect the interpretation of the data. Here we evaluate the accuracy of operational taxonomic unit (OTU) generation, taxonomic classification, alpha- and beta-diversity measures for different settings in QIIME, MOTHUR and a pplacer-based classification pipeline, using a novel software package: DECARD. In-silico we generated 100 synthetic bacterial communities approximating human stool microbiomes to be used as a gold-standard for evaluating the colligative performance of microbiome analysis software. Our synthetic data closely matched the composition and complexity of actual healthy human stool microbiomes. Genus-level taxonomic classification was correctly done for only 50.4-74.8% of the source organisms. Miscall rates varied from 11.9 to 23.5%. Species-level classification was less successful, (6.9-18.9% correct); miscall rates were comparable to those of genus-level targets (12.5-26.2%). The degree of miscall varied by clade of organism, pipeline and specific settings used. OTU generation accuracy varied by strategy (closed, de novo or subsampling), reference database, algorithm and software implementation. Shannon diversity estimation accuracy correlated generally with OTU-generation accuracy. Beta-diversity estimates with Double Principle Coordinate Analysis (DPCoA) were more robust against errors introduced in processing than Weighted UniFrac. The settings suggested in the tutorials were among the worst performing in all outcomes tested. Even when using the same classification pipeline, the specific OTU-generation strategy, reference database and downstream analysis methods selection can have a dramatic effect on the accuracy of taxonomic classification, and alpha- and beta-diversity estimation. Even minor changes in settings adversely affected the accuracy of the results, bringing them far from the best-observed result. Thus, specific details of how a pipeline is used (including OTU generation strategy, reference sets, clustering algorithm and specific software implementation) should be specified in the methods section of all microbiome studies. Researchers should evaluate their chosen pipeline and settings to confirm it can adequately answer the research question rather than assuming the tutorial or standard-operating-procedure settings will be adequate or optimal.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 120 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 26%
Researcher 25 21%
Student > Master 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Other 5 4%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 18 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 12 10%
Environmental Science 7 6%
Computer Science 5 4%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 22 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 20 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,588,324
of 23,327,904 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#319
of 7,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,792
of 316,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#9
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,327,904 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 316,970 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.