Cited by 587Gut microbiota and healthGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 30 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Assessment of variation in microbial community amplicon sequencing by the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project consortium

Open access

The Microbiome Quality Control Project Consortium, Sinha, Rashmi, Abu-Ali, Galeb, Vogtmann, Emily, Fodor, Anthony A, Ren, Boyu, Amir, Amnon, Schwager, Emma, Crabtree, Jonathan, Ma, Siyuan, Abnet, Christian C, Knight, Rob, White, Owen, Huttenhower, Curtis·2017·Nature Biotechnology

DOI 10.1038/nbt.3981PMC PMC5839636

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In order for human microbiome studies to translate into actionable outcomes for health, meta-analysis of reproducible data from population-scale cohorts is needed. Achieving sufficient reproducibility in microbiome research has proven challenging. We report a baseline investigation of variability in taxonomic profiling for the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project baseline study (MBQC-base). Blinded specimen sets from human stool, chemostats, and artificial microbial communities were sequenced by 15 laboratories and analyzed using nine bioinformatics protocols. Variability depended most on biospecimen type and origin, followed by DNA extraction, sample handling environment, and bioinformatics. Analysis of artificial community specimens revealed differences in extraction efficiency and bioinformatic classification. These results may guide researchers in experimental design choices for gut microbiome studies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nbt.3981

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 30 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 40 claims

It may state two separate claims as one. 63
Probably not a substantial claim. 45
The quote only partly states this claim. 2

A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At least one OTU was reported in 342 of these samples, with the observed number ranging from 1 to ~130 at low (1,000 sequences) rarefaction and almost 200 in all sequences”
§ Assessment of variation in microbial community amplicon sequencing by the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project consortium > Results > Negative controls
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 342
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Negative control buffer aliquots are expected to contain no microbial DNA or OTUs, so any OTUs detected in them indicate contamination.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Beta diversities between locally- versus centrally-extracted samples were specimen-specific, with some samples showing little effect and others differing significantly primarily based on this single handling protocol variable”
§ Assessment of variation in microbial community amplicon sequencing by the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project consortium > Results > Variation due to extraction protocol
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedn = 22
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Comparing centrally extracted DNA with locally extracted DNA isolates the effect of DNA extraction from PCR and sequencing effects.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most abundant contaminant OTU was an unidentified Bacteroides at 1.6 s.d. 7.0%, which was detected in 22.6% of negative control samples and was also abundant in stool samples (average 1.2 s.d. 3.7%).”
§ Assessment of variation in microbial community amplicon sequencing by the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project consortium > Results > Negative controls
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 345
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Negative control buffer aliquots are expected to contain no microbial DNA or OTUs, so any OTUs detected in them indicate contamination.
In the paper
“this experiment supported the expected ground truth and further confirmed the variability of laboratory and bioinformatics protocols when reading out even these low-complexity communities.”
§ Assessment of variation in microbial community amplicon sequencing by the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project consortium > Results > Positive controls
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [22] Segata, N. et al. Metagenomic microbial community profiling using unique clade-specific marker genes. Nat. Methods 9, 811–814 (2012). source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedn = 6
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the top 100 most abundant false positive Greengenes identifiers (average relative abundances ranging from 0.2% to 1.5%), 34% were from genera Bacteroides; Faecalibacterium prausnitzii also comprised 9% of the top 100 IDs, genus Pseudomonas 7%, and family Enterobacteriaceae 6%”
§ Assessment of variation in microbial community amplicon sequencing by the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project consortium > Results > Negative controls
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 345
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Negative control buffer aliquots are expected to contain no microbial DNA or OTUs, so any OTUs detected in them indicate contamination.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sample handling and bioinformatics protocols had an effect on community profile accuracy (Fig. 4A–B), but the largest contributor to variability was contamination or omissions owing to microbes whose DNA was not extracted”
§ Assessment of variation in microbial community amplicon sequencing by the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project consortium > Results > Positive controls
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Negative control buffer aliquots are expected to contain no microbial DNA or OTUs, so any OTUs detected in them indicate contamination.
In the paper
“Sources of contamination varied, including one lab with samples comprising mainly Lactobacillus (HL-A), three labs with Pseudomonas (possibly reagent contamination23 , HL-B, HL-F, and HL-D), and sequence, bioinformatic, and/or physical contamination from gut-derived samples in all laboratories.”
§ Assessment of variation in microbial community amplicon sequencing by the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project consortium > Results > Negative controls
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] Salter, S.J. et al. Reagent and laboratory contamination can critically impact sequence-based microbiome analyses. BMC Biol. 12, 87 (2014). source
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedn = 345
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Negative control buffer aliquots are expected to contain no microbial DNA or OTUs, so any OTUs detected in them indicate contamination.
In the paper
“Centrally extracted (pre-extracted) samples were associated with higher abundances of Bacteroidetes; since all pre-extracted samples were extracted using a MO-BIO kit, these results are consistent with reports showing that the MO-BIO based HMP protocol generated data enriched for genera within the Bacteroidetes24.”
§ Assessment of variation in microbial community amplicon sequencing by the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project consortium > Results > Multivariate quantification of variation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [24] Wesolowska-Andersen, A. et al. Choice of bacterial DNA extraction method from fecal material influences community structure as evaluated by metagenomic analysis. Microbiome 2, 19 (2014). source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“choices of 16S rRNA gene variable region primers may enable improved detection or differentiation of microbes16; for example, Propionibacterium spp. abundant on the skin are often undetected by V4 primers29, and Lactobacillus spp. in the vagina are better differentiated by including V321.”
§ Assessment of variation in microbial community amplicon sequencing by the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project consortium > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [16] Soergel, D.A., Dey, N., Knight, R. & Brenner, S.E. Selection of primers for optimal taxonomic classification of environmental 16S rRNA gene sequences. ISME J. 6, 1440–1444 (2012). source
- Not checked yetcites [29] Nelson, M.C., Morrison, H.G., Benjamino, J., Grim, S.L. & Graf, J. Analysis, optimization and verification of Illumina-generated 16S rRNA gene amplicon surveys. PLoS One 9, e94249 (2014). source
- Not checked yetcites [21] Fadrosh, D.W. et al. An improved dual-indexing approach for multiplexed 16S rRNA gene sequencing on the Illumina MiSeq platform. Microbiome 2, 6 (2014). source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“different human host cohorts may harbor remarkably different Gram-negative versus Gram-positive diversity3, 30, and a protocol appropriate for one type of community may work well in one study but not in another.”
§ Assessment of variation in microbial community amplicon sequencing by the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project consortium > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] Yatsunenko, T. et al. Human gut microbiome viewed across age and geography. Nature 486, 222–227 (2012). source
- Not checked yetcites [30] De Filippo, C. et al. Impact of diet in shaping gut microbiota revealed by a comparative study in children from Europe and rural Africa. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 14691–14696 (2010). source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Artificial communities were developed from in-house isolates representative of the range of bacterial genera found within the oral or gut habitats, including both Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria with a range of genomic G+C ratios (Supplementary Table 1).”
§ Assessment of variation in microbial community amplicon sequencing by the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project consortium > Online Methods > Biological specimens
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Supplementary Table 1
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“All strains were originally isolated from human subjects, and HMP genome reference strains were included where available5.”
§ Assessment of variation in microbial community amplicon sequencing by the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project consortium > Online Methods > Biological specimens
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Vatanen, T. et al. Variation in microbiome LPS immunogenicity contributes to autoimmunity in humans. Cell 165, 842–853 (2016). source
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Sequencing data for positive controls diverge in almost every published study28, including ours (Supplementary Dataset 1), which confirms that relative, not absolute, measures are comparable between protocols.”
§ Assessment of variation in microbial community amplicon sequencing by the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project consortium > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Morgan, J.L., Darling, A.E. & Eisen, J.A. Metagenomic sequencing of an in vitro-simulated microbial community. PLoS One 5, e10209 (2010). source
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“newly diagnosed cases with adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum were recruited prior to surgery and treatment during 1985–19891, 2. Controls were patients awaiting elective surgery for non-oncologic, non-gastrointestinal conditions at these hospitals during the same period.”
§ Assessment of variation in microbial community amplicon sequencing by the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project consortium > Online Methods > Biological specimens
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Human Microbiome Project Consortium. Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature 486, 207–214 (2012). source
- Not checked yetcites [2] Qin, J. et al. A human gut microbial gene catalogue established by metagenomic sequencing. Nature 464, 59–65 (2010). source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 4
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

87 of 87

The paper relies on this without support.
Negative control buffer aliquots are expected to contain no microbial DNA or OTUs, so any OTUs detected in them indicate contamination.
“We included Tris-HCl buffer aliquots as negative control samples (two per 96-sample set)”
“At least one OTU was reported in 342 of these samples”
The paper relies on this without support.
Comparing centrally extracted DNA with locally extracted DNA isolates the effect of DNA extraction from PCR and sequencing effects.
“We separated variation caused by DNA extraction from variation owing to PCR and sequencing by comparing centrally- versus locally-extracted samples”

2 of 2

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?

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

The stated slurry volume exceeds the volume prepared
Major
The procedure prepares a slurry using 50 mL of medium, then says 100 mL of supernatant from the resulting slurry was added to each vessel. No additional slurry preparation is described.
The modeled phylum is named inconsistently
Minor
The results list Bacteroides among the four phyla modeled, whereas the methods list Bacteroidetes in its place. These names identify different taxonomic ranks.
Six laboratories are incorrectly described as a majority
Minor
The paper identifies fifteen handling laboratories, so six laboratories constitute 40%, not a majority.

3 of 3

Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data
Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M., & Usadel, B. (2014) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170 · Cited by 65,548
QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data
Caporaso, J. G., Kuczynski, J., Stombaugh, J., Bittinger, K., Bushman, F. D., Costello, E. K., Fierer, N., Peña, A. G., Goodrich, J. K., Gordon, J. I., et al. (2010) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.f.303 · Cited by 34,887
Self-citation
Introducing mothur: Open-Source, Platform-Independent, Community-Supported Software for Describing and Comparing Microbial Communities
Schloss, P. D., Westcott, S. L., Ryabin, T., Hall, J. R., Hartmann, M., Hollister, E. B., Lesniewski, R. A., Oakley, B. B., Parks, D. H., Robinson, C. J., et al. (2009) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.01541-09 · Cited by 21,481
UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads
Edgar, R. C. (2013) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.2604 · Cited by 16,770
FLASH: fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies
Magoč, T., & Salzberg, S. L. (2011) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btr507 · Cited by 15,366
Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome
The Human Microbiome Project Consortium (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11234 · Cited by 11,726
A human gut microbial gene catalogue established by metagenomic sequencing
MetaHIT Consortium, Qin, J., Li, R., Raes, J., Arumugam, M., Burgdorf, K. S., Manichanh, C., Nielsen, T., Pons, N., Levenez, F., et al. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature08821 · Cited by 11,624
Ultra-high-throughput microbial community analysis on the Illumina HiSeq and MiSeq platforms
Caporaso, J. G., Lauber, C. L., Walters, W. A., Berg-Lyons, D., Huntley, J., Fierer, N., Owens, S. M., Betley, J., Fraser, L., Bauer, M., et al. (2012) · The ISME Journal · doi:10.1038/ismej.2012.8 · Cited by 8,839
Self-citation
Human gut microbiome viewed across age and geography
Yatsunenko, T., Rey, F. E., Manary, M. J., Trehan, I., Dominguez-Bello, M. G., Contreras, M., Magris, M., Hidalgo, G., Baldassano, R. N., Anokhin, A. P., et al. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11053 · Cited by 7,815
Self-citation
Development of a Dual-Index Sequencing Strategy and Curation Pipeline for Analyzing Amplicon Sequence Data on the MiSeq Illumina Sequencing Platform
Kozich, J. J., Westcott, S. L., Baxter, N. T., Highlander, S. K., & Schloss, P. D. (2013) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.01043-13 · Cited by 7,219

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 64 references

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 586

Deep learning in microbiome analysis: a comprehensive review of neural network models
Przymus, P., Rykaczewski, K., Martín‐Segura, A., Truu, J., Pau, E. C. D. S., Kolev, M., Naskinova, I., Gruca, A., Sampri, A., Frohme, M., et al. (2025) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2024.1516667 · Cited by 93
Meeting report from the joint IARC–NCI international cancer seminar series: a focus on colorectal cancer
Gunter, M. J., Alhomoud, S. J., Arnold, M., Brenner, H., Burn, J., Casey, G., Chan, A. T., Cross, A. J., Giovannucci, E. L., Hoover, R. N., et al. (2019) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdz044 · Cited by 73
Self-citation
Oral microbial community composition is associated with pancreatic cancer: A case‐control study in Iran
Vogtmann, E., Han, Y., Caporaso, J. G., Bokulich, N. A., Mohamadkhani, A., Moayyedkazemi, A., Hua, X., Kamangar, F., Wan, Y., Suman, S., et al. (2019) · Cancer Medicine · doi:10.1002/cam4.2660 · Cited by 79
Self-citation
Intestinal microbiome and metal toxicity
Assefa, S., & Köhler, G. A. (2019) · Current Opinion in Toxicology · doi:10.1016/j.cotox.2019.09.009 · Cited by 74
Challenges and opportunities in sharing microbiome data and analyses
Huttenhower, C., Finn, R. D., & McHardy, A. C. (2023) · Nature Microbiology · doi:10.1038/s41564-023-01484-x · Cited by 74
Self-citation
Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment (QMRA) and Molecular Biology - Paths to Integration.
Haas, C. (2020) · Environmental Science and Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c00664 · Cited by 59
A critical review on the effect of nitrate pollution in aquatic invertebrates and fish
Banerjee, P., Garai, P., Saha, N. C., Saha, S., Sharma, P., & Maiti, A. K. (2023) · Water Air & Soil Pollution · doi:10.1007/s11270-023-06260-5 · Cited by 79
Great differences in performance and outcome of high-throughput sequencing data analysis platforms for fungal metabarcoding
Anslan, S., Nilsson, R. H., Wurzbacher, C., Baldrián, P., Tedersoo, L., & Bahram, M. (2018) · MycoKeys · doi:10.3897/mycokeys.39.28109 · Cited by 72
Variability and bias in microbiome metagenomic sequencing: an interlaboratory study comparing experimental protocols
Forry, S. P., Servetas, S. L., Kralj, J. G., Soh, K., Hadjithomas, M., Cano, R. J., Carlin, M. R., de Amorim, M. G., Auch, B., Bakker, M. G., et al. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-57981-4 · Cited by 92
Self-citation
Drinking Water Microbiome Project: Is it Time?
Hull, N. M., Ling, F., Pinto, A. J., Albertsen, M., Jang, H., Hong, P., Konstantinidis, K. T., LeChevallier, M. W., Colwell, R. R., & Liu, W. (2019) · Trends in Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.tim.2019.03.011 · Cited by 66
Toward Standards in Clinical Microbiota Studies: Comparison of Three DNA Extraction Methods and Two Bioinformatic Pipelines
Ducarmon, Q. R., Hornung, B., Geelen, A. R., Kuijper, E. J., & Zwittink, R. D. (2020) · mSystems · doi:10.1128/msystems.00547-19 · Cited by 63
Evaluation of fecal DNA extraction protocols for human gut microbiome studies
Lim, M. Y., Park, Y., Kim, J., & Nam, Y. (2020) · BMC Microbiology · doi:10.1186/s12866-020-01894-5 · Cited by 75
Markers of metabolic health and gut microbiome diversity: findings from two population-based cohort studies
Zouiouich, S., Loftfield, E., Huybrechts, I., Viallon, V., Louca, P., Vogtmann, E., Wells, P. M., Steves, C. J., Herzig, K., Menni, C., et al. (2021) · Diabetologia · doi:10.1007/s00125-021-05464-w · Cited by 62
Self-citation
Detection of stable community structures within gut microbiota co-occurrence networks from different human populations
Jackson, M. A., Bonder, M. J., Kuncheva, Z., Zierer, J., Fu, J., Kurilshikov, A., Wijmenga, C., Zhernakova, A., Bell, J. T., Spector, T. D., et al. (2018) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.4303 · Cited by 66
Tumor-Associated Microbiome: Where Do We Stand?
Oliva, M., Mulet-Margalef, N., Ochoa-de-Olza, M., Napoli, S., Mas-Lloret, J., Laquente, B., Alemany, L., Duell, E. J., Nuciforo, P. G., & Moreno, V. R. (2021) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms22031446 · Cited by 63
The effect of low-abundance OTU filtering methods on the reliability and variability of microbial composition assessed by 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing
Nikodémová, M., Holzhausen, E. A., Deblois, C. L., Barnet, J. H., Peppard, P. E., Suen, G., & Malecki, K. M. C. (2023) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2023.1165295 · Cited by 62
Shallow shotgun sequencing reduces technical variation in microbiome analysis
Reau, A. J. L., Strom, N., Filvaroff, E. H., Mavrommatis, K., Ward, T., & Knights, D. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-33489-1 · Cited by 60
Streamlining data-intensive biology with workflow systems
Reiter, T. E., Brooks, P., Irber, L. C., Joslin, S. E. K., Reid, C., Scott, C., Brown, C. T., & Pierce‐Ward, N. T. (2021) · GigaScience · doi:10.1093/gigascience/giaa140 · Cited by 59
Gut microbiota community characteristics and disease-related microorganism pattern in a population of healthy Chinese people
Zhang, W., Li, J., Lu, S., Han, N., Miao, J., Zhang, T., Qiang, Y., Kong, Y., Wang, H., Gao, T., et al. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-36318-y · Cited by 62
Toward Accurate and Robust Environmental Surveillance Using Metagenomics
Shen, J., McFarland, A. G., Young, V. B., Hayden, M. K., & Hartmann, E. M. (2021) · Frontiers in Genetics · doi:10.3389/fgene.2021.600111 · Cited by 49
Impact of Bead-Beating Intensity on the Genus- and Species-Level Characterization of the Gut Microbiome Using Amplicon and Complete 16S rRNA Gene Sequencing
Zhang, B., Brock, M., Arana, C., Dende, C., van Oers, N. S. C., Hooper, L. V., & Raj, P. (2021) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2021.678522 · Cited by 56
A study of the correlation between obesity and intestinal flora in school-age children
Gao, X., Jia, R., Xie, L., Kuang, L., Feng, L., & Wan, C. (2018) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-32730-6 · Cited by 61
Filling the gap between collection, transport and storage of the human gut microbiota
Martínez, N., Hidalgo-Cantabrana, C., Delgado, S., Margollés, A., & Sánchez, B. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-44888-8 · Cited by 53
Variation in the Microbiota Associated with Daphnia magna Across Genotypes, Populations, and Temperature
Frankel‐Bricker, J., Song, M. J., Benner, M. J., & Schaack, S. (2019) · Microbial Ecology · doi:10.1007/s00248-019-01412-9 · Cited by 55
Gut microbiota and probiotic therapy in ADHD: A review of current knowledge
Kalenik, A. M., Kardaś, K., Rahnama, A., Sirojć, K., & Wolańczyk, T. (2021) · Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2021.110277 · Cited by 58
Meta-analysis defines predominant shared microbial responses in various diseases and a specific inflammatory bowel disease signal
Abbas‐Egbariya, H., Haberman, Y., Braun, T., Hadar, R., Denson, L. A., Gal‐Mor, O., & Amir, A. (2022) · Genome biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-022-02637-7 · Cited by 49
Self-citation
DNA Extraction and Host Depletion Methods Significantly Impact and Potentially Bias Bacterial Detection in a Biological Fluid
Ganda, E., Beck, K. L., Haiminen, N., Silverman, J. D., Kawas, B., Cronk, B. D., Anderson, R. R., Goodman, L. B., & Wiedmann, M. (2021) · mSystems · doi:10.1128/msystems.00619-21 · Cited by 49
Time of sample collection is critical for the replicability of microbiome analyses
Allaband, C., Lingaraju, A., Ramos, S. F., Kumar, T., Javaheri, H., Tiu, M. D., Machado, A. C. D., Richter, R. A., Elijah, E. O., Haddad, G. G., et al. (2024) · Nature Metabolism · doi:10.1038/s42255-024-01064-1 · Cited by 61
Self-citation
Paenibacillus infection with frequent viral coinfection contributes to postinfectious hydrocephalus in Ugandan infants
Paulson, J. N., Williams, B. L., Hehnly, C., Mishra, N., Sinnar, S. A., Zhang, L., Ssentongo, P., Mbabazi-Kabachelor, E., Wijetunge, D. S. S., von Bredow, B., et al. (2020) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aba0565 · Cited by 48
The human microbiome in clinical translation: from bench to bedside
Bautista, J., Echeverría, C. E., Maldonado-Noboa, I., Ojeda-Mosquera, S., Hidalgo-Tinoco, C., & López-Cortés, A. (2025) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2025.1632435 · Cited by 55
The application of molecular tools to study the drinking water microbiome – Current understanding and future needs
Zhang, Y., & Liu, W. (2019) · Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology · doi:10.1080/10643389.2019.1571351 · Cited by 53
Tracing seafood at high spatial resolution using NGS-generated data and machine learning: Comparing microbiome versus SNPs
Milan, M., Maroso, F., Rovere, G. D., et al. (2019) · Food Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.02.037 · Cited by 54
Challenges in Human Skin Microbial Profiling for Forensic Science: A Review
Neckovic, A., van Oorschot, R. A. H., Szkuta, B., & Durdle, A. (2020) · Genes · doi:10.3390/genes11091015 · Cited by 56
Assessing the impact of storage time on the stability of stool microbiota richness, diversity, and composition
Holzhausen, E. A., Nikodémová, M., Deblois, C. L., Barnet, J. H., Peppard, P. E., Suen, G., & Malecki, K. M. C. (2021) · Gut Pathogens · doi:10.1186/s13099-021-00470-0 · Cited by 41
Alterations in the gut microbiome implicate key taxa and metabolic pathways across inflammatory arthritis phenotypes
Thompson, K. N., Bonham, K. S., Ilott, N. E., Britton, G. J., Colmenero, P., Bullers, S. J., McIver, L. J., Ma, S., Nguyen, L. H., Filer, A. D., et al. (2023) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.abn4722 · Cited by 57
Self-citation
Choice of DNA extraction method affects stool microbiome recovery and subsequent phenotypic association analyses
Fernández-Pato, A., Sinha, T., Gaćeša, R., Andreu‐Sánchez, S., Gois, M. F. B., Gelderloos-Arends, J., Jansen, D. B. H., Kruk, M., Jaeger, M., Joosten, L. A. B., et al. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-54353-w · Cited by 56
redbiom: a Rapid Sample Discovery and Feature Characterization System
McDonald, D., Kaehler, B., González, A., DeReus, J., Ackermann, G., Marotz, C., Huttley, G., & Knight, R. (2019) · mSystems · doi:10.1128/msystems.00215-19 · Cited by 45
Self-citation
Methods in microbiome research: Past, present, and future
Gotschlich, E. C., Colbert, R. A., & Gill, T. (2019) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology · doi:10.1016/j.berh.2020.101498 · Cited by 58
Comparison of DNA extraction methods for 16S rRNA gene sequencing in the analysis of the human gut microbiome
Elie, C., Perret, M., Hage, H., Sentausa, E., Hesketh, A., Louis, K., Fritah-Lafont, A., Leissner, P., Vachon, C., Rostaing, H., et al. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-33959-6 · Cited by 58
Microbiome Diagnostics
Schlaberg, R. (2019) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2019.303248 · Cited by 50
Alterations in the cutaneous microbiome of patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis reveal similarities between non-lesional and lesional skin
Boix-Amorós, A., Badri, M. H., Manasson, J., Blank, R. B., Haberman, R. H., Neimann, A. L., Girija, P. V., Hernández, A. J., Heguy, A., Koralov, S. B., et al. (2022) · Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases · doi:10.1136/ard-2022-223389 · Cited by 50
Evaluating Established Methods for Rumen 16S rRNA Amplicon Sequencing With Mock Microbial Populations
McGovern, E., Waters, S. M., Blackshields, G., & McCabe, M. S. (2018) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2018.01365 · Cited by 48
Long-term storage of feces at −80 °C versus −20 °C is negligible for 16S rRNA amplicon profiling of the equine bacterial microbiome
Gavriliuc, S., Stothart, M. R., Henry, A., & Poissant, J. (2021) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.10837 · Cited by 36
The environmental microbiome, allergic disease, and asthma
Kelly, M. S., Bunyavanich, S., Phipatanakul, W., & Lai, P. S. (2022) · The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice · doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2022.06.006 · Cited by 47
Best practice for wildlife gut microbiome research: A comprehensive review of methodology for 16S rRNA gene investigations
Combrink, L., Humphreys, I. R., Washburn, Q., Arnold, H. K., Stagaman, K., Kasschau, K. D., Jolles, A. E., Beechler, B. R., & Sharpton, T. J. (2023) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2023.1092216 · Cited by 54
Modulating a prebiotic food source influences inflammation and immune-regulating gut microbes and metabolites: insights from the BE GONE trial
Zhang, X., Irajizad, E., Hoffman, K. L., Fahrmann, J. F., Li, F., Seo, Y. D., Browman, G. J., Dennison, J. B., Vykoukal, J. V., Luna, P. N., et al. (2023) · EBioMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104873 · Cited by 56
Gut microbiota in hepatocellular carcinoma immunotherapy: immune microenvironment remodeling and gut microbiota modification
Huang, M., Ji, Q., Huang, H., Wang, X., & Wang, L. (2025) · Gut Microbes · doi:10.1080/19490976.2025.2486519 · Cited by 53
Considerations for the design and conduct of human gut microbiota intervention studies relating to foods
Swann, J. R., Rajilić-Stojanović, M. D., Salonen, A., Sakwińska, O., Gill, C. M., Meynier, A., Fança‐Berthon, P., Schelkle, B., Segata, N., Shortt, C., et al. (2020) · European Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1007/s00394-020-02232-1 · Cited by 48
Integrating the human microbiome in the forensic toolkit: Current bottlenecks and future solutions
López, C. D., Vidaki, A., & Kayser, M. (2021) · Forensic Science International Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2021.102627 · Cited by 49
G ut microbiome metagenomics in clinical practice: bridging the gap between research and precision medicine
Tegegne, H. A., & Savidge, T. (2025) · Gut Microbes · doi:10.1080/19490976.2025.2569739 · Cited by 59
Refinement of 16S rRNA gene analysis for low biomass biospecimens
Villette, R., Autaa, G., Hind, S., Holm, J. B., Sabater, A. M., & Larsen, M. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-90226-2 · Cited by 44
Characterization and Demonstration of Mock Communities as Control Reagents for Accurate Human Microbiome Community Measurements
Tourlousse, D. M., Narita, K., Miura, T., Ohashi, A., Matsuda, M., Ohyama, Y., Shimamura, M., Furukawa, M., Kasahara, K., Kameyama, K., et al. (2022) · Microbiology Spectrum · doi:10.1128/spectrum.01915-21 · Cited by 42
Greengenes2 enables a shared data universe for microbiome studiesPreprint
McDonald, D. T., Jiang, Y., Balaban, M., et al. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.12.19.520774 · Cited by 44
Self-citation
Quartet protein reference materials and datasets for multi-platform assessment of label-free proteomics
Tian, S., Zhan, D., Yu, Y., Wang, Y., Liu, M., Tan, S., Li, Y., Song, L., Qin, Z., Li, X., et al. (2023) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-023-03048-y · Cited by 43
A microbial signature following bariatric surgery is robustly consistent across multiple cohorts
Fouladi, F., Carroll, I. M., Sharpton, T. J., Bulik‐Sullivan, E. C., Heinberg, L. J., Steffen, K. J., & Fodor, A. A. (2021) · Gut Microbes · doi:10.1080/19490976.2021.1930872 · Cited by 44
Self-citation
Metabolic mediators: microbial-derived metabolites as key regulators of anti-tumor immunity, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy
Lu, S., Wang, C., Ma, J., & Wang, Y. (2024) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2024.1456030 · Cited by 49
Temporal Variability and Stability of the Fecal Microbiome: The Multiethnic Cohort Study
Fu, B. C., Randolph, T. W., Lim, U., Monroe, K. R., Cheng, I. C., Wilkens, L. R., Marchand, L. L., Lampe, J. W., & Hullar, M. A. J. (2018) · Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-18-0348 · Cited by 43
Panel 4: Recent advances in understanding the natural history of the otitis media microbiome and its response to environmental pressures
Marsh, R. L., Aho, C., Beissbarth, J., Bialasiewicz, S., Binks, M., Cervin, A., Kirkham, L. S., Lemon, K. P., Slack, M., & Smith‐Vaughan, H. (2019) · International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology · doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.109836 · Cited by 37
Comparison of methodological approaches to human gut microbiota changes in response to metabolic and bariatric surgery: A systematic review
Morales, E., Hanson, B., Greathouse, K. L., Cruz-Munoz, N. F. D. L., & Messiah, S. E. (2020) · Obesity Reviews · doi:10.1111/obr.13025 · Cited by 44
LogMPIE, pan-India profiling of the human gut microbiome using 16S rRNA sequencing
Dubey, A. K., Uppadhyaya, N., Nilawe, P., Chauhan, N., Kumar, S., Gupta, U. A., & Bhaduri, A. (2018) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2018.232 · Cited by 42
A realistic benchmark for differential abundance testing and confounder adjustment in human microbiome studies
Wirbel, J., Essex, M., Forslund, S. K., & Zeller, G. (2024) · Genome biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-024-03390-9 · Cited by 57
Changes in the Rumen Microbiota of Cows in Response to Dietary Supplementation with Nitrate, Linseed, and Saponin Alone or in Combination
Popova, M., Guyader, J., Silberberg, M., Seradj, A. R., Saro, C., Bernard, A., Gérard, C., Martin, C., & Morgavi, D. P. (2018) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.02657-18 · Cited by 45
The promise and challenge of cancer microbiome research
Manzoor, S. S., Doedens, A. M., & Burns, M. B. (2020) · Genome biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-020-02037-9 · Cited by 42
Consistent and correctable bias in metagenomic sequencing experimentsPreprint
McLaren, M. R., Willis, A. D., & Callahan, B. J. (2019) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/559831 · Cited by 41
Gut microbiome and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a systematic review of current evidence
Sun, J., Huang, T., Debelius, J. W., & Fang, F. (2021) · Journal of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/joim.13336 · Cited by 43
Validation of a Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing Assay for Lower Respiratory Pathogen Detection
Diao, Z., Lai, H., Han, D., Yang, B., Zhang, R., & Li, J. (2022) · Microbiology Spectrum · doi:10.1128/spectrum.03812-22 · Cited by 40
Oral Microbiome Profile of the US Population
Chaturvedi, A. K., Vogtmann, E., Shi, J., Yano, Y., Blaser, M. J., Bokulich, N. A., Caporaso, J. G., Gillison, M. L., Graubard, B. I., Hua, X., et al. (2025) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.8283 · Cited by 49
Self-citation
The Impact of Bioinformatics Pipelines on Microbiota Studies: Does the Analytical “Microscope” Affect the Biological Interpretation?
Siegwald, L., Caboche, S., Even, G., Viscogliosi, É., Audebert, C., & Chabé, M. (2019) · Microorganisms · doi:10.3390/microorganisms7100393 · Cited by 41
Shared and Distinct Gut Microbiota in Spondyloarthritis, Acute Anterior Uveitis, and Crohn's Disease
Essex, M., Rodríguez, V. R., Rademacher, J., Proft, F. N., Löber, U., Markó, L., Pleyer, U., Strowig, T., Marchand, J., Kirwan, J., et al. (2023) · Arthritis & Rheumatology · doi:10.1002/art.42658 · Cited by 45
Diatom metabarcoding and microscopic analyses from sediment samples at Lake Nam Co, Tibet: The effect of sample-size and bioinformatics on the identified communities
Kang, W., Anslan, S., Börner, N., Schwarz, A., Schmidt, R. H., Künzel, S., Rioual, P., Galindo, P. G. E., Miguel Vences, B., Wang, J., et al. (2020) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107070 · Cited by 38
Exploring how microbiome signatures change across inflammatory bowel disease conditions and disease locations
Amos, G. C. A., Sergaki, C., Logan, A., Iriarte, R., Bannaga, A., Chandrapalan, S., Wellington, E. M. H., Rijpkema, S. G. T., & Arasaradnam, R. P. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-96942-z · Cited by 44
The Impact of Instant Coffee and Decaffeinated Coffee on the Gut Microbiota and Depression-Like Behaviors of Sleep-Deprived Rats
Gu, X., Zhang, S., Ma, W., Wang, Q., Li, Y., Xia, C., Xu, Y., Zhang, T., Yang, L., & Zhou, M. (2022) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2022.778512 · Cited by 37
Development and evaluation of a colorectal cancer screening method using machine learning‐based gut microbiota analysis
Konishi, Y., Okumura, S., Matsumoto, T., Itatani, Y., Nishiyama, T., Okazaki, Y., Shibutani, M., Ohtani, N., Nagahara, H., Obama, K., et al. (2022) · Cancer Medicine · doi:10.1002/cam4.4671 · Cited by 37
Current understanding of the human microbiome in glioma
Liang, J., Li, T., Zhao, J., Wang, C., & Sun, H. (2022) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.781741 · Cited by 37
Unveiling the intratumoral microbiota within cancer landscapes
Che, S., Yan, Z., Feng, Y., & Hai, Z. (2024) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2024.109893 · Cited by 41
Microbiome and Metabolome Insights into the Role of the Gastrointestinal–Brain Axis in Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s Disease: Unveiling Potential Therapeutic Targets
Zacharias, H. U., Kaleta, C., Cossais, F., Schaeffer, E., Berndt, H., Best, L., Dost, T., Glüsing, S., Groussin, M., Poyet, M., et al. (2022) · Metabolites · doi:10.3390/metabo12121222 · Cited by 38
Long-term taxonomic and functional stability of the gut microbiome from human fecal samples
Kim, J. H., Jeon, J., Im, Y., Ha, N., Kim, J.-K., Moon, S. J., & Kim, M. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-27033-w · Cited by 36
tmap: an integrative framework based on topological data analysis for population-scale microbiome stratification and association studies
Liao, T., Wei, Y., Luo, M., Zhao, G., & Zhou, H. (2019) · Genome biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-019-1871-4 · Cited by 31
Tendentious effects of automated and manual metagenomic DNA purification protocols on broiler gut microbiome taxonomic profiling
Fidler, G., Szilágyi-Tolnai, E., Stágel, A., Remenyik, J., Stündl, L., Gal, F., Bíró, S., & Paholcsek, M. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-60304-y · Cited by 35
Synthetic Sequencing Standards: A Guide to Database Choice for Rumen Microbiota Amplicon Sequencing Analysis
Smith, P. E., Waters, S. M., Expósito, R. G., Smidt, H., Carberry, C. A., & McCabe, M. S. (2020) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2020.606825 · Cited by 38
Gut Microbiome in Health and Disease
Lavelle, A., & Hill, C. (2019) · Gastroenterology Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.gtc.2019.02.003 · Cited by 35
TIPP2: metagenomic taxonomic profiling using phylogenetic markers
Shah, N., Molloy, E. K., Pop, M., & Warnow, T. J. (2021) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btab023 · Cited by 33
Evaluating replicability in microbiome data
Clausen, D. S., & Willis, A. D. (2021) · Biostatistics · doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxab048 · Cited by 32
Microbiome meta-analysis and cross-disease comparison enabled by the SIAMCAT machine-learning toolboxPreprint
Wirbel, J., Zych, K., Essex, M., Karcher, N., Kartal, E., Salazar, G., Peer Bork, B., Sunagawa, S., & Zeller, G. (2020) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2020.02.06.931808 · Cited by 33
Gut microbiome meta-analysis reveals dysbiosis is independent of body mass index in predicting risk of obesity-associated CRC
Greathouse, K. L., White, J. R., Padgett, R. N., Perrotta, B. G., Jenkins, G. D., Chia, N., & Chen, J. (2019) · BMJ Open Gastroenterology · doi:10.1136/bmjgast-2018-000247 · Cited by 35
Comparison of fecal and oral collection methods for studies of the human microbiota in two Iranian cohorts
Wu, Z., Hullings, A. G., Ghanbari, R., Etemadi, A., Wan, Y., Zhu, B., Poustchi, H., Bagheri-Fahraji, B., Sakhvidi, M. J. Z., Shi, J., et al. (2021) · BMC Microbiology · doi:10.1186/s12866-021-02387-9 · Cited by 21
Self-citation
Assessment of the impact of different fecal storage protocols on the microbiota diversity and composition: a pilot study
Moossavi, S., Engen, P. A., Ghanbari, R., Green, S. J., Naqib, A. D., Bishehsari, F., Merat, S., Poustchi, H., Keshavarzian, A., & Malekzadeh, R. (2019) · BMC Microbiology · doi:10.1186/s12866-019-1519-2 · Cited by 34
Variations of Gut Microbiome Profile Under Different Storage Conditions and Preservation Periods: A Multi-Dimensional Evaluation
Ma, J., Sheng, L., Hong, Y., Xi, C., Gu, Y., Zheng, N., Li, M., Chen, L., Wu, G., Li, Y., et al. (2020) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2020.00972 · Cited by 34
The Gut Microbiome and Xenobiotics: Identifying Knowledge Gaps
Sutherland, V. L., McQueen, C. A., Mendrick, D. L., Gulezian, D., Cerniglia, C. E., Foley, S. L., Forry, S., Khare, S., Liang, X., Manautou, J. E., et al. (2020) · Toxicological Sciences · doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfaa060 · Cited by 33
Method development for cross-study microbiome data mining: Challenges and opportunities
Su, X., Jing, G., Zhang, Y., & Wu, S. (2020) · Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2020.07.020 · Cited by 31
The oral microbiome and breast cancer and nonmalignant breast disease, and its relationship with the fecal microbiome in the Ghana Breast Health Study
Wu, Z., Byrd, D. A., Wan, Y., Ansong, D., Clegg‐Lamptey, J., Wiafe‐Addai, B., Edusei, L., Adjei, E. K., Titiloye, N. A., Dedey, F., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1002/ijc.34145 · Cited by 34
Self-citation
Naught all zeros in sequence count data are the samePreprint
Silverman, J. D., Roche, K. E., Mukherjee, S., et al. (2018) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/477794 · Cited by 34
Cancer's second genome: Microbial cancer diagnostics and redefining clonal evolution as a multispecies process: Humans and their tumors are not aseptic, and the multispecies nature of cancer modulates clinical care and clonal evolution
Sepich‐Poore, G. D., Guccione, C., Laplane, L., Pradeu, T., Curtius, K., & Knight, R. (2022) · BioEssays · doi:10.1002/bies.202100252 · Cited by 33
Self-citation
From microbiome to metabolism: Bridging a two-decade translational gap
Hul, M. V., & Cani, P. D. (2025) · Cell Metabolism · doi:10.1016/j.cmet.2025.10.011 · Cited by 47
Developing whole cell standards for the microbiome field
Sergaki, C., Anwar, S., Fritzsche, M., Mate, R., Francis, R. J., MacLellan‐Gibson, K., Logan, A., & Amos, G. C. A. (2022) · Microbiome · doi:10.1186/s40168-022-01313-z · Cited by 36
Gut microbiota interactions with antitumor immunity in colorectal cancer: From understanding to application
Zhuang, Y.-P., Zhou, H., Chen, H., Zheng, M.-Y., Liang, Y., Gu, Y.-T., Li, W., Qiu, W., & Zhou, H. (2023) · Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy · doi:10.1016/j.biopha.2023.115040 · Cited by 34
Rare Plankton Subcommunities Are Far More Affected by DNA Extraction Kits Than Abundant Plankton
Liu, M., Xue, Y., & Yang, J. (2019) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2019.00454 · Cited by 36
Microbiome and Cancers of the Esophagus: A Review
Yano, Y., Etemadi, A., & Abnet, C. C. (2021) · Microorganisms · doi:10.3390/microorganisms9081764 · Cited by 33
Self-citation
Next steps in studying the human microbiome and health in prospective studies, Bethesda, MD, May 16–17, 2017
Sinha, R. R., Ahsan, H., Blaser, M. J., Caporaso, J. G., Carmical, J. R., Chan, A. T., Fodor, A. A., Gail, M. H., Harris, C. C., Helzlsouer, K. J., et al. (2018) · Microbiome · doi:10.1186/s40168-018-0596-z · Cited by 31
Self-citation
Metagenomic analysis of individually analyzed ticks from Eastern Europe demonstrates regional and sex-dependent differences in the microbiota of Ixodes ricinus
Batool, M., Blazier, J. C., Rogovska, Y. V., Wang, J., Liu, S., Nebogatkin, I. V., & Rogovskyy, A. S. (2021) · Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases · doi:10.1016/j.ttbdis.2021.101768 · Cited by 24

Authors: The Microbiome Quality Control Project Consortium, Sinha, R., Abu-Ali, G., Vogtmann, E., Fodor, A. A., Ren, B., Amir, A., Schwager, E., Crabtree, J., Ma, S., Abnet, C. C., Knight, R., White, O., & Huttenhower, C.
Affiliations: National Cancer Institute (US)
Broad Institute (US)
University of North Carolina at Charlotte (US)
Harvard University (US)
University of California San Diego (US)
University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
Corresponding author: Huttenhower, Curtis
ORCID: Sinha, Rashmi
Abu-Ali, Galeb
Vogtmann, Emily
Fodor, Anthony A
Ren, Boyu
Amir, Amnon
Schwager, Emma
Crabtree, Jonathan
Ma, Siyuan
Abnet, Christian C
Knight, Rob
White, Owen
Huttenhower, Curtis
Venue: Nature Biotechnology
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published: 2017-10-02
Volume: 35
Issue: 11
Pages: 1077-1086
ISSN: 0733-222X (ISSN-L)
1087-0156
1546-1696
DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3981
PMC: PMC5839636
OpenAlex: W2762425175
Semantic Scholar: a253c43fc33ed458f6d9051ba718eb95e6e7ba1a
Cited by: 587
References: 64
Citations by year: 2026: 104 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 66 · 2021: 84 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 3
FWCI: 18.45
Type: journal article
Language: en
Open access: green
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Licence: www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations: Nature Biotechnology (publishedVersion)
PubMed (publishedVersion)
PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (acceptedVersion)
eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders: National Human Genome Research Institute (U01HG004866, R01HG005969, U01HG006537, R01HG004872, R01HG005220)
National Cancer Institute (R01CA179243)
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK043351)
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (U54DE023798)
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 gut microbiome, taxonomic profiling, chemostat, DNA extraction, sample handling, bioinformatics protocols, meta-analysis, experimental design
MeSH terms: Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Bacteria, DNA, Bacterial, Humans, Reference Standards, Research Design, Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques, Microbiota

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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

Assessment of variation in microbial community amplicon sequencing by the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project consortium

Abstract

Overview

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Claims other papers make about this one

Self-check

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Related

Metadata

Record

About these checks