Cited by 200Gut microbiota and healthGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGene expression and cancer classification

A broken promise: microbiome differential abundance methods do not control the false discovery rate

Hawinkel, Stijn, Mattiello, Federico, Bijnens, Luc, Thas, Olivier·2019·Briefings in Bioinformatics

Abstract

High-throughput sequencing technologies allow easy characterization of the human microbiome, but the statistical methods to analyze microbiome data are still in their infancy. Differential abundance methods aim at detecting associations between the abundances of bacterial species and subject grouping factors. The results of such methods are important to identify the microbiome as a prognostic or diagnostic biomarker or to demonstrate efficacy of prodrug or antibiotic drugs. Because of a lack of benchmarking studies in the microbiome field, no consensus exists on the performance of the statistical methods. We have compared a large number of popular methods through extensive parametric and nonparametric simulation as well as real data shuffling algorithms. The results are consistent over the different approaches and all point to an alarming excess of false discoveries. This raises great doubts about the reliability of discoveries in past studies and imperils reproducibility of microbiome experiments. To further improve method benchmarking, we introduce a new simulation tool that allows to generate correlated count data following any univariate count distribution; the correlation structure may be inferred from real data. Most simulation studies discard the correlation between species, but our results indicate that this correlation can negatively affect the performance of statistical methods.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/bib/bbx104

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • If the compositional property is not accounted for, the likelihood of introducing false positives in differential abundance analysis and negative correlation biases in correlation-based analysis increases heavily.

    “If this statistical property is not accounted for, the likelihood of introducing false positives in differential abundance analysis59,60 and negative correlation biases in correlation-based analysis61,62 increases heavily.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hawinkel, S., Mattiello, F., Bijnens, L., & Thas, O.
Affiliations
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • Hasselt University (BE)
Corresponding author
Hawinkel, Stijn
Venue
Briefings in Bioinformatics
Published
2017-08-22
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
210-221
ISSN
  • 1467-5463 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-4054
OpenAlex
W2749493208
Cited by
199
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2
FWCI
4.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Briefings in Bioinformatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
  • Document Server@UHasselt (UHasselt) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Janssen Pharmaceuticals (NCT3.0_2015.13, NCT3.0_2015.2 SPL/RP)
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
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
false discovery rate, method benchmarking, simulation software, correlated count data, reproducibility, statistical power, biomarker discovery, human microbiome
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Computer Simulation, Humans, Statistics, Nonparametric, Computational Biology, Databases, Genetic, Biodiversity, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing, 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.

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