Cited by 1,267Gut microbiota and healthGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology

Strains, functions and dynamics in the expanded Human Microbiome Project

Open access
Lloyd-Price, Jason, Mahurkar, Anup, Rahnavard, Gholamali, Crabtree, Jonathan, Orvis, Joshua, Hall, A. Brantley, Brady, Arthur, Creasy, Heather H. +7 more·2017·Nature

Abstract

The characterization of baseline microbial and functional diversity in the human microbiome has enabled studies of microbiome-related disease, diversity, biogeography, and molecular function. The National Institutes of Health Human Microbiome Project has provided one of the broadest such characterizations so far. Here we introduce a second wave of data from the study, comprising 1,631 new metagenomes (2,355 total) targeting diverse body sites with multiple time points in 265 individuals. We applied updated profiling and assembly methods to provide new characterizations of microbiome personalization. Strain identification revealed subspecies clades specific to body sites; it also quantified species with phylogenetic diversity under-represented in isolate genomes. Body-wide functional profiling classified pathways into universal, human-enriched, and body site-enriched subsets. Finally, temporal analysis decomposed microbial variation into rapidly variable, moderately variable, and stable subsets. This study furthers our knowledge of baseline human microbial diversity and enables an understanding of personalized microbiome function and dynamics.

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/nature23889

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Comparative genomic analyses usually test for correlations between traits.

    “Comparative genomic analyses usually test for correlations between traits.”

    From A phylogenetic approach to comparative genomics (2025) · cites this paper as [77]

    The Methods section, “Association testing between microbiome features and phenotypic covariates” (page unavailable), describes testing associations between microbial or pathway abundances and subject metadata. This supports the idea that the paper tests associations, but it does not establish that comparative genomic analyses usually test correlations between traits. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • While the inherited genome is essentially stable for the lifetime of the host, the microbiome is immensely diverse, dynamic, and responsive to external input, enhancing its potential as a target for therapeutic intervention.

    “While our inherited genome is essentially stable for the lifetime of the host, the microbiome is immensely diverse (Mosca et al., 2016;Pasolli et al., 2019), dynamic (Lloyd-Price et al., 2017), and responsive to external input, enhancing its potential as a target for therapeutic intervention”

    From The Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis (2019) · cites this paper as Lloyd-Price et al., 2017

  • The environment has more influence on the gut microbiome than the pathological condition in human progeria.

    “Despite the low number of samples, these results suggest that the environment has more influence on the gut microbiome than the pathological condition, which is in accordance with recent findings 22,23 .”
  • Most bacterial taxa detected in pancreatic tumor tissue are also commonly found in the gut microbiome.

    “Most of the bacterial communities found in the tumoral milieu are present commonly in the gut microbiome (Human Microbiome Project, 2012b; Lloyd-Price et al., 2017)”

    From Tumor Microbiome Diversity and Composition Influence Pancreatic Cancer Outcomes (2019) · cites this paper as Lloyd-Price et al., 2017

  • HMP1 studies established typical ranges, for some populations, of microbial membership and enzymatic repertoires across the body, combinations of metabolic functions that were either prevalent or strain-specific, and some host factors such as race or ethnicity that determine this variation.

    “Studies of both a baseline adult population21–23 and ‘demonstration’ populations with specific disease states established typical ranges (for some populations) of microbial membership and enzymatic repertoires across the body, combinations of metabolic functions that were either prevalent or strain-specific, and some of the host factors (such as race or ethnicity) that determine this variation.”

    From The Integrative Human Microbiome Project (2019) · cites this paper as [23]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lloyd-Price, J., Mahurkar, A., Rahnavard, G., Crabtree, J., Orvis, J., Hall, A. B., Brady, A., Creasy, H. H., McCracken, C., Giglio, M. G., McDonald, D., Franzosa, E. A., Knight, R., White, O., & Huttenhower, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Huttenhower, Curtis
Venue
Nature
Published
2017-09-20
Volume
550
Issue
7674
Pages
61-66
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2756958651
Cited by
1,267
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 91 · 2025: 126 · 2024: 150 · 2023: 108 · 2022: 165 · 2021: 195 · 2020: 160 · 2019: 168 · 2018: 91 · 2017: 10 · 2014: 1
FWCI
47.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2017-10-12)
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (U54HG004969, U54HG003079, U01HG004866, U01HG006537, R01HG004872, U54HG004968, U54HG004973)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (U54AI084844)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (U54DK102557, P30DK043351)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
Keywords
human microbiome, metagenomics, Human Microbiome Project, microbial diversity, strain identification, phylogenetic diversity, functional profiling, pathway enrichment, temporal dynamics
MeSH terms
Humans, National Institutes of Health (U.S.), Organ Specificity, Phylogeny, Time Factors, United States, Metagenome, Molecular Sequence Annotation, Spatio-Temporal Analysis, Microbiota, Datasets as Topic

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