Cited by 6Gut microbiota and healthGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology

Microbiome depiction through user-adapted bioinformatic pipelines and parameters

Open access
Nayman, Eric I., Schwartz, Brooke A., Polanco, Fantaysia C., Firek, Alexandra K., Gumabong, Alayna C., Hofstee, Nolan J., Narasimhan, Giri, Cickovski, Trevor +1 more·2023·Journal of Medical Microbiology

Abstract

Graphical Abstract: Determining microbiome composition is a multi-step process. The 16S rRNA gene is amplified from the extracted DNA, sequenced, and then metagenomic data are input into a bioinformatic workflow. This paper describes how choices of bioinformatic pipelines, databases, and parameter values, such as maxEE and QTrim, can impact microbial compositional output.

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 · 10.1099/jmm.0.001756

Cites

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?

  • In practice, gut microbiota profiling through 16S rRNA sequencing has become the gold standard for assessing ecological nutritional status.

    “In practice, gut microbiota profiling through 16S rRNA sequencing has become the gold standard for assessing ecological nutritional status [78].”

    From The Seven Methods for the Evaluation of Nutritional Status—ABCDEFG: Narrative Review (2026) · cites this paper as [78]

    The graphical abstract describes 16S rRNA sequencing as a way to determine microbiome composition. The Abstract does not identify it as a gold standard or discuss assessing ecological nutritional status; it instead cautions that 16S-based compositions depend on the bioinformatic pipeline and should be interpreted carefully. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 135 · Cited by 6

Authors
Nayman, E. I., Schwartz, B. A., Polanco, F. C., Firek, A. K., Gumabong, A. C., Hofstee, N. J., Narasimhan, G., Cickovski, T., & Mathee, K.
Affiliations
Florida International University (US)
Venue
Journal of Medical Microbiology
Published
2023-10-12
Volume
72
Issue
10
ISSN
  • 0022-2615 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-5644
OpenAlex
W4387564027
Cited by
6
References
135
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2
FWCI
0.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Microbiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Florida International University Digital Commons (Florida International University) (submittedVersion)
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
microbiome, 16S rRNA, microbial community analysis, bioinformatics pipeline, taxonomic interpretation
MeSH terms
RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Reproducibility of Results, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Computational Biology, Genomics, 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