↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of bias induced by viral enrichment and random amplification protocols in metagenomic surveys of saliva DNA viruses

Overview of attention for article published in Microbiome, June 2018
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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
17 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 Mendeley
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
Evaluation of bias induced by viral enrichment and random amplification protocols in metagenomic surveys of saliva DNA viruses
Published in
Microbiome, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40168-018-0507-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcos Parras-Moltó, Ana Rodríguez-Galet, Patricia Suárez-Rodríguez, Alberto López-Bueno

Abstract

Viruses are key players regulating microbial ecosystems. Exploration of viral assemblages is now possible thanks to the development of metagenomics, the most powerful tool available for studying viral ecology and discovering new viruses. Unfortunately, several sources of bias lead to the misrepresentation of certain viruses within metagenomics workflows, hindering the shift from merely descriptive studies towards quantitative comparisons of communities. Therefore, benchmark studies on virus enrichment and random amplification protocols are required to better understand the sources of bias. We assessed the bias introduced by viral enrichment on mock assemblages composed of seven DNA viruses, and the bias from random amplification methods on human saliva DNA viromes, using qPCR and deep sequencing, respectively. While iodixanol cushions and 0.45 μm filtration preserved the original composition of nuclease-protected viral genomes, low-force centrifugation and 0.22 μm filtration removed large viruses. Comparison of unamplified and randomly amplified saliva viromes revealed that multiple displacement amplification (MDA) induced stochastic bias from picograms of DNA template. However, the type of bias shifted to systematic using 1 ng, with only a marginal influence by amplification time. Systematic bias consisted of over-amplification of small circular genomes, and under-amplification of those with extreme GC content, a negative bias that was shared with the PCR-based sequence-independent, single-primer amplification (SISPA) method. MDA based on random priming provided by a DNA primase activity slightly outperformed those based on random hexamers and SISPA, which may reflect differences in ability to handle sequences with extreme GC content. SISPA viromes showed uneven coverage profiles, with high coverage peaks in regions with low linguistic sequence complexity. Despite misrepresentation of certain viruses after random amplification, ordination plots based on dissimilarities among contig profiles showed perfect overlapping of related amplified and unamplified saliva viromes and strong separation from unrelated saliva viromes. This result suggests that random amplification bias has a minor impact on beta diversity studies. Benchmark analyses of mock and natural communities of viruses improve understanding and mitigate bias in metagenomics surveys. Bias induced by random amplification methods has only a minor impact on beta diversity studies of human saliva viromes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 181 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 19%
Researcher 35 19%
Student > Master 25 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 27 15%
Unknown 38 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 43 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 23%
Immunology and Microbiology 19 10%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 7 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 4%
Other 18 10%
Unknown 45 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 25 February 2023.
All research outputs
#1,562,245
of 25,362,278 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
#554
of 1,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,648
of 342,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
#25
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,362,278 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 1,755 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 342,635 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.