↓ Skip to main content

A comprehensive benchmarking study of protocols and sequencing platforms for 16S rRNA community profiling

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, January 2016
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
71 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
639 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
A comprehensive benchmarking study of protocols and sequencing platforms for 16S rRNA community profiling
Published in
BMC Genomics, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12864-015-2194-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosalinda D’Amore, Umer Zeeshan Ijaz, Melanie Schirmer, John G. Kenny, Richard Gregory, Alistair C. Darby, Migun Shakya, Mircea Podar, Christopher Quince, Neil Hall

Abstract

In the last 5 years, the rapid pace of innovations and improvements in sequencing technologies has completely changed the landscape of metagenomic and metagenetic experiments. Therefore, it is critical to benchmark the various methodologies for interrogating the composition of microbial communities, so that we can assess their strengths and limitations. The most common phylogenetic marker for microbial community diversity studies is the 16S ribosomal RNA gene and in the last 10 years the field has moved from sequencing a small number of amplicons and samples to more complex studies where thousands of samples and multiple different gene regions are interrogated. We assembled 2 synthetic communities with an even (EM) and uneven (UM) distribution of archaeal and bacterial strains and species, as metagenomic control material, to assess performance of different experimental strategies. The 2 synthetic communities were used in this study, to highlight the limitations and the advantages of the leading sequencing platforms: MiSeq (Illumina), The Pacific Biosciences RSII, 454 GS-FLX/+ (Roche), and IonTorrent (Life Technologies). We describe an extensive survey based on synthetic communities using 3 experimental designs (fusion primers, universal tailed tag, ligated adaptors) across the 9 hypervariable 16S rDNA regions. We demonstrate that library preparation methodology can affect data interpretation due to different error and chimera rates generated during the procedure. The observed community composition was always biased, to a degree that depended on the platform, sequenced region and primer choice. However, crucially, our analysis suggests that 16S rRNA sequencing is still quantitative, in that relative changes in abundance of taxa between samples can be recovered, despite these biases. We have assessed a range of experimental conditions across several next generation sequencing platforms using the most up-to-date configurations. We propose that the choice of sequencing platform and experimental design needs to be taken into consideration in the early stage of a project by running a small trial consisting of several hypervariable regions to quantify the discriminatory power of each region. We also suggest that the use of a synthetic community as a positive control would be beneficial to identify the potential biases and procedural drawbacks that may lead to data misinterpretation. The results of this study will serve as a guideline for making decisions on which experimental condition and sequencing platform to consider to achieve the best microbial profiling.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 71 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 639 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 <1%
Germany 4 <1%
France 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Other 5 <1%
Unknown 615 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 143 22%
Researcher 140 22%
Student > Master 90 14%
Student > Bachelor 47 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 37 6%
Other 95 15%
Unknown 87 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 216 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 139 22%
Immunology and Microbiology 40 6%
Environmental Science 34 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 3%
Other 67 10%
Unknown 123 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 26 September 2021.
All research outputs
#944,890
of 25,813,008 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#115
of 11,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,370
of 404,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#3
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,813,008 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,331 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 404,794 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 254 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 98% of its contemporaries.