Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 342

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Metagenomic 16S rDNA I llumina tags are a powerful alternative to amplicon sequencing to explore diversity and structure of microbial communities

Open access
Logares, Ramiro, Sunagawa, Shinichi, Salazar, Guillem, Cornejo‐Castillo, Francisco M., Ferrera, Isabel, Sarmento, Hugo, Hingamp, Pascal, Ogata, Hiroyuki, de Vargas, Colomban, Lima‐Mendez, Gipsi, Raes, Jeroen, Poulain, Julie, Jaillon, Olivier, Wincker, Patrick, Kandels‐Lewis, Stefanie, Karsenti, Eric, Bork, Peer, Acinas, Silvia G.·2014·Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

Summary: Sequencing of 16S rDNA polymerase chain reaction ( PCR ) amplicons is the most common approach for investigating environmental prokaryotic diversity, despite the known biases introduced during PCR . Here we show that 16S rDNA fragments derived from Illumina‐sequenced environmental metagenomes ( mi tag s) are a powerful alternative to 16S rDNA amplicons for investigating the taxonomic diversity and structure of prokaryotic communities. As part of the T ara O ceans global expedition, marine plankton was sampled in three locations, resulting in 29 subsamples for which metagenomes were produced by shotgun Illumina sequencing (ca. 700 Gb). For comparative analyses, a subset of samples was also selected for R oche‐454 sequencing using both shotgun ( m454 tag s; 13 metagenomes, ca. 2.4 Gb) and 16S rDNA amplicon ( 454 tag s; ca. 0.075 Gb) approaches. Our results indicate that by overcoming PCR biases related to amplification and primer mismatch, mi tag s may provide more realistic estimates of community richness and evenness than amplicon 454 tag s. In addition, mi tag s can capture expected beta diversity patterns. Using mi tag s is now economically feasible given the dramatic reduction in high‐throughput sequencing costs, having the advantage of retrieving simultaneously both taxonomic ( B acteria, A rchaea and E ukarya) and functional information from the same microbial community.

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 · 10.1111/1462-2920.12250

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 342

Metadata

Authors
Logares, R., Sunagawa, S., Salazar, G., Cornejo‐Castillo, F. M., Ferrera, I., Sarmento, H., Hingamp, P., Ogata, H., de Vargas, C., Lima‐Mendez, G., Raes, J., Poulain, J., Jaillon, O., Wincker, P., Kandels‐Lewis, S., Karsenti, E., Bork, P., & Acinas, S. G.
Venue
Environmental Microbiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-09-18
Volume
16
Issue
9
Pages
2659-2671
ISSN
  • 1462-2912 (ISSN-L)
  • 1462-2920
OpenAlex
W1510306455
Cited by
342
References
6
FWCI
19.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Metagenomic 16S rDNA I llumina tags are a powerful alternative to amplicon sequencing to explore diversity and structure of microbial communities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1462-2920.12250
The paper
Logares, R., Sunagawa, S., Salazar, G., Cornejo‐Castillo, F. M., Ferrera, I., Sarmento, H., Hingamp, P., Ogata, H., de Vargas, C., Lima‐Mendez, G., Raes, J., Poulain, J., Jaillon, O., Wincker, P., Kandels‐Lewis, S., Karsenti, E., Bork, P., & Acinas, S. G. (2014). Metagenomic 16S rDNA I llumina tags are a powerful alternative to amplicon sequencing to explore diversity and structure of microbial communities. Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.12250

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.