The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of two next-generation sequencing technologies for resolving highly complex microbiota composition using tandem variable 16S rRNA gene regions
Open accessAbstract
High-throughput molecular technologies can profile microbial communities at high resolution even in complex environments like the intestinal microbiota. Recent improvements in next-generation sequencing technologies allow for even finer resolution. We compared phylogenetic profiling of both longer (454 Titanium) sequence reads with shorter, but more numerous, paired-end reads (Illumina). For both approaches, we targeted six tandem combinations of 16S rRNA gene variable regions, in microbial DNA extracted from a human faecal sample, in order to investigate their limitations and potentials. In silico evaluations predicted that the V3/V4 and V4/V5 regions would provide the highest classification accuracies for both technologies. However, experimental sequencing of the V3/V4 region revealed significant amplification bias compared to the other regions, emphasising the necessity for experimental validation of primer pairs. The latest developments of 454 and Illumina technologies offered higher resolution compared to their previous versions, and showed relative consistency with each other. However, the majority of the Illumina reads could not be classified down to genus level due to their shorter length and higher error rates beyond 60 nt. Nonetheless, with improved quality and longer reads, the far greater coverage of Illumina promises unparalleled insights into highly diverse and complex environments such as the human gut.
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
Woese, C. R. (1987) · Microbiological Reviews · doi:10.1128/mr.51.2.221-271.1987 · Cited by 5,042 · cited 1×
“The nine different variable 16S rRNA gene regions are flanked by conserved stretches in most bacteria (2), and they can be used as targets for PCR primers with near-universal bacterial specificity (3,4).”
Dethlefsen, L., Huse, S., Sogin, M. L., & Relman, D. A. (2008) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060280 · Cited by 2,361
Cited by
Multi-omics approaches to disease
Hasin, Y., Seldin, M., & Lusis, A. (2017) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-017-1215-1 · Cited by 2,953
Milani, C., Duranti, S., Bottacini, F., Casey, E., Turroni, F., Mahony, J., Belzer, C., Delgado Palacio, S., Arboleya Montes, S., Mancabelli, L., et al. (2017) · Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews · doi:10.1128/mmbr.00036-17 · Cited by 1,950
You are what you eat: Diet, health and the gut microbiota
Zmora, N., Suez, J., & Elinav, E. (2019) · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1038/s41575-018-0061-2 · Cited by 1,792
The Intestinal Microbiome in Early Life: Health and Disease
Arrieta, M.-C., Stiemsma, L. T., Amenyogbe, N., Brown, E. M., & Finlay, B. (2014) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2014.00427 · Cited by 1,024
Poretsky, R., Rodriguez-R, L. M., Luo, C., Tsementzi, D., & Konstantinidis, K. T. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0093827 · Cited by 684
Metadata
- Authors
- Claesson, M. J., Wang, Q., O'Sullivan, O., Greene-Diniz, R., Cole, J. R., Ross, R. P., & O'Toole, P. W.
- Venue
- Nucleic Acids Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-09-29
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- e200-e200
- ISSN
- 0305-1048 (ISSN-L)
- 1362-4962
- OpenAlex
- W2095132285
- Cited by
- 980
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 16.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Comparison of two next-generation sequencing technologies for resolving highly complex microbiota composition using tandem variable 16S rRNA gene regions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/nar/gkq873
- The paper
- Claesson, M. J., Wang, Q., O'Sullivan, O., Greene-Diniz, R., Cole, J. R., Ross, R. P., & O'Toole, P. W. (2010). Comparison of two next-generation sequencing technologies for resolving highly complex microbiota composition using tandem variable 16S rRNA gene regions. Nucleic Acids Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkq873
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.