The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Library preparation methodology can influence genomic and functional predictions in human microbiome research
Open accessAbstract
Significance: The field of microbiome research is moving from 16S rDNA gene sequencing to metagenomic sequencing of complete communities, which clearly gives a more comprehensive genomic and functional representation of the organisms present. Here we describe, quantify, and compare biases associated with four currently available next-generation sequencing library preparation methods using a synthetic DNA mock community and an extraction spike-in control of microbial cells. Our study highlights a critical need for consistency in protocols and data analysis procedures, especially when attempting to interpret human microbiome data for human health.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A framework for human microbiome research
The Human Microbiome Project Consortium (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11209 · Cited by 2,650
The truth about metagenomics: quantifying and counteracting bias in 16S rRNA studies
Vaginal Microbiome Consortium (additional members), Brooks, J. P., Edwards, D. J., Harwich, M. D., Rivera, M. C., Fettweis, J. M., Serrano, M. G., Reris, R. A., Sheth, N. U., Huang, B., et al. (2015) · BMC Microbiology · doi:10.1186/s12866-015-0351-6 · Cited by 528
A Taxonomic Signature of Obesity in the Microbiome? Getting to the Guts of the Matter
Finucane, M. M., Sharpton, T. J., Laurent, T. J., & Pollard, K. S. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0084689 · Cited by 321
Cited by
Shotgun metagenomics, from sampling to analysis
Quince, C., Walker, A. W., Simpson, J. T., Loman, N. J., & Segata, N. (2017) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.3935 · Cited by 2,202
The Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes Ratio: A Relevant Marker of Gut Dysbiosis in Obese Patients?
Magne, F., Gotteland, M., Gauthier, L., Zazueta, A., Pesoa, S., Navarrete, P., & Balamurugan, R. (2020) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu12051474 · Cited by 2,335
Loomba, R., Seguritan, V., Li, W., Long, T., Klitgord, N., Bhatt, A., Dulai, P. S., Caussy, C., Bettencourt, R., Highlander, S. K., et al. (2017) · Cell Metabolism · doi:10.1016/j.cmet.2017.04.001 · Cited by 1,123
Self-citationTowards standards for human fecal sample processing in metagenomic studies
Costea, P. I., Zeller, G., Sunagawa, S., Pelletier, E., Alberti, A., Levenez, F., Tramontano, M., Driessen, M., Hercog, R., Jung, F.-E., et al. (2017) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.3960 · Cited by 893
Systematic improvement of amplicon marker gene methods for increased accuracy in microbiome studies
Gohl, D. M., Vangay, P., Garbe, J., MacLean, A., Hauge, A., Becker, A., Gould, T. J., Clayton, J. B., Johnson, T. J., Hunter, R., et al. (2016) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.3601 · Cited by 819
Metadata
- Authors
- Jones, M. B., Highlander, S. K., Anderson, E. L., Li, W., Dayrit, M., Klitgord, N., Fabani, M. M., Seguritan, V., Green, J., Pride, D. T., Yooseph, S., Biggs, W., Nelson, K. E., & Venter, J. C.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2015-10-28
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 45
- Pages
- 14024-14029
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2113114502
- Cited by
- 204
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 7.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Library preparation methodology can influence genomic and functional predictions in human microbiome research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1519288112
- The paper
- Jones, M. B., Highlander, S. K., Anderson, E. L., Li, W., Dayrit, M., Klitgord, N., Fabani, M. M., Seguritan, V., Green, J., Pride, D. T., Yooseph, S., Biggs, W., Nelson, K. E., & Venter, J. C. (2015). Library preparation methodology can influence genomic and functional predictions in human microbiome research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1519288112
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.
