Meta-analyses of studies of the human microbiota
Open accessAbstract
Our body habitat-associated microbial communities are of intense research interest because of their influence on human health. Because many studies of the microbiota are based on the same bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene target, they can, in principle, be compared to determine the relative importance of different disease/physiologic/developmental states. However, differences in experimental protocols used may produce variation that outweighs biological differences. By comparing 16S rRNA gene sequences generated from diverse studies of the human microbiota using the QIIME database, we found that variation in composition of the microbiota across different body sites was consistently larger than technical variability across studies. However, samples from different studies of the Western adult fecal microbiota generally clustered by study, and the 16S rRNA target region, DNA extraction technique, and sequencing platform produced systematic biases in observed diversity that could obscure biologically meaningful compositional differences. In contrast, systematic compositional differences in the fecal microbiota that occurred with age and between Western and more agrarian cultures were great enough to outweigh technical variation. Furthermore, individuals with ileal Crohn's disease and in their third trimester of pregnancy often resembled infants from different studies more than controls from the same study, indicating parallel compositional attributes of these distinct developmental/physiological/disease states. Together, these results show that cross-study comparisons of human microbiota are valuable when the studied parameter has a large effect size, but studies of more subtle effects on the human microbiota require carefully selected control populations and standardized protocols.
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
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.
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?
Technical variability between studies in microbiome measurements can sometimes exceed biological effects.
“Inter-study technical variability in microbiome measurements can sometimes, for example, outweigh biological effects6–9.”
From Assessment of variation in microbial community amplicon sequencing by the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project consortium (2017) · cites this paper as [6]
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 49 · Cited by 424
- Authors
- Lozupone, C. A., Stombaugh, J., Gonzalez, A., Ackermann, G., Wendel, D., Vázquez-Baeza, Y., Jansson, J. K., Gordon, J. I., & Knight, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
- University of Colorado Boulder (US)
- Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Knight, Rob
- ORCID
- Venue
- Genome Research
- Publisher
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
- Published
- 2013-07-16
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1704-1714
- ISSN
- 1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3787266
- OpenAlex
- W2157159562
- Cited by
- 424
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 58 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Genome Research (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Digital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine) (submittedVersion)
- OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Howard Hughes Medical Institute
- Crohn's and Colitis Foundation
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K01DK090285)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
- Keywords
- human microbiota, 16S rRNA gene, cross-study comparison, technical variability, fecal microbiota, microbiota composition, sequencing bias, DNA extraction methods, Crohn's disease, pregnancy, infant microbiome, body site differences
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aging, Bacteria, Crohn Disease, DNA, Bacterial, Feces, Female, Humans, Infant, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Biodiversity, Metagenome, Metagenomics, 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