Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 607

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Impact of training sets on classification of high-throughput bacterial 16s rRNA gene surveys

Open access
Werner, Jeffrey J, Koren, Omry, Hugenholtz, Philip, DeSantis, Todd Z, Walters, William A, Caporaso, J Gregory, Angenent, Largus T, Knight, Rob, Ley, Ruth E·2012·The ISME Journal

Abstract

Taxonomic classification of the thousands–millions of 16S rRNA gene sequences generated in microbiome studies is often achieved using a naïve Bayesian classifier (for example, the Ribosomal Database Project II (RDP) classifier), due to favorable trade-offs among automation, speed and accuracy. The resulting classification depends on the reference sequences and taxonomic hierarchy used to train the model; although the influence of primer sets and classification algorithms have been explored in detail, the influence of training set has not been characterized. We compared classification results obtained using three different publicly available databases as training sets, applied to five different bacterial 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing data sets generated (from human body, mouse gut, python gut, soil and anaerobic digester samples). We observed numerous advantages to using the largest, most diverse training set available, that we constructed from the Greengenes (GG) bacterial/archaeal 16S rRNA gene sequence database and the latest GG taxonomy. Phylogenetic clusters of previously unclassified experimental sequences were identified with notable improvements (for example, 50% reduction in reads unclassified at the phylum level in mouse gut, soil and anaerobic digester samples), especially for phylotypes belonging to specific phyla (Tenericutes, Chloroflexi, Synergistetes and Candidate phyla TM6, TM7). Trimming the reference sequences to the primer region resulted in systematic improvements in classification depth, and greatest gains at higher confidence thresholds. Phylotypes unclassified at the genus level represented a greater proportion of the total community variation than classified operational taxonomic units in mouse gut and anaerobic digester samples, underscoring the need for greater diversity in existing reference databases.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ismej.2011.82

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 607

Metadata

Authors
Werner, J. J., Koren, O., Hugenholtz, P., DeSantis, T. Z., Walters, W. A., Caporaso, J. G., Angenent, L. T., Knight, R., & Ley, R. E.
Venue
The ISME Journal
Published
2011-06-30
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
94-103
ISSN
  • 1751-7362 (ISSN-L)
  • 1751-7370
OpenAlex
W2045073446
Cited by
607
References
7
FWCI
8.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Impact of training sets on classification of high-throughput bacterial 16s rRNA gene surveys. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/ismej.2011.82
The paper
Werner, J. J., Koren, O., Hugenholtz, P., DeSantis, T. Z., Walters, W. A., Caporaso, J. G., Angenent, L. T., Knight, R., & Ley, R. E. (2012). Impact of training sets on classification of high-throughput bacterial 16s rRNA gene surveys. The ISME Journal. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2011.82

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.