Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 3,473

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Chimeric 16S rRNA sequence formation and detection in Sanger and 454-pyrosequenced PCR amplicons

Open access
Haas, Brian J., Gevers, Dirk, Earl, Ashlee M., Feldgarden, Mike, Ward, Doyle V., Giannoukos, Georgia, Ciulla, Dawn, Tabbaa, Diana, Highlander, Sarah K., Sodergren, Erica, Methé, Barbara, DeSantis, Todd Z., The Human Microbiome Consortium, Petrosino, Joseph F., Knight, Rob, Birren, Bruce W.·2011·Genome Research

Abstract

Bacterial diversity among environmental samples is commonly assessed with PCR-amplified 16S rRNA gene (16S) sequences. Perceived diversity, however, can be influenced by sample preparation, primer selection, and formation of chimeric 16S amplification products. Chimeras are hybrid products between multiple parent sequences that can be falsely interpreted as novel organisms, thus inflating apparent diversity. We developed a new chimera detection tool called Chimera Slayer (CS). CS detects chimeras with greater sensitivity than previous methods, performs well on short sequences such as those produced by the 454 Life Sciences (Roche) Genome Sequencer, and can scale to large data sets. By benchmarking CS performance against sequences derived from a controlled DNA mixture of known organisms and a simulated chimera set, we provide insights into the factors that affect chimera formation such as sequence abundance, the extent of similarity between 16S genes, and PCR conditions. Chimeras were found to reproducibly form among independent amplifications and contributed to false perceptions of sample diversity and the false identification of novel taxa, with less-abundant species exhibiting chimera rates exceeding 70%. Shotgun metagenomic sequences of our mock community appear to be devoid of 16S chimeras, supporting a role for shotgun metagenomics in validating novel organisms discovered in targeted sequence surveys.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/gr.112730.110

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 3,473

Metadata

Authors
Haas, B. J., Gevers, D., Earl, A. M., Feldgarden, M., Ward, D. V., Giannoukos, G., Ciulla, D., Tabbaa, D., Highlander, S. K., Sodergren, E., Methé, B., DeSantis, T. Z., The Human Microbiome Consortium, Petrosino, J. F., Knight, R., & Birren, B. W.
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2011-01-06
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
494-504
ISSN
1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2101120467
Cited by
3,473
References
5
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Chimeric 16S rRNA sequence formation and detection in Sanger and 454-pyrosequenced PCR amplicons. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1101/gr.112730.110
The paper
Haas, B. J., Gevers, D., Earl, A. M., Feldgarden, M., Ward, D. V., Giannoukos, G., Ciulla, D., Tabbaa, D., Highlander, S. K., Sodergren, E., Methé, B., DeSantis, T. Z., The Human Microbiome Consortium, Petrosino, J. F., Knight, R., & Birren, B. W. (2011). Chimeric 16S rRNA sequence formation and detection in Sanger and 454-pyrosequenced PCR amplicons. Genome Research. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.112730.110

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.