Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 515

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantifying microbial communities with 454 pyrosequencing: does read abundance count?: QUANTITATIVE PYROSEQUENCING OF MICROBES

AMEND, ANTHONY S., SEIFERT, KEITH A., BRUNS, THOMAS D.·2010·Molecular Ecology

Abstract

Pyrosequencing technologies have revolutionized how we describe and compare complex microbial communities. In 454 pyrosequencing data sets, the abundance of reads pertaining to taxa or phylotypes is commonly interpreted as a measure of genic or taxon abundance, useful for quantitative comparisons of community similarity. Potentially systematic biases inherent in sample processing, amplification and sequencing, however, may alter read abundance and reduce the utility of quantitative metrics. Here, we examine the relationship between read abundance and biological abundance in a sample of house dust spiked with known quantities and identities of fungi along a dilution gradient. Our results show one order of magnitude differences in read abundance among species. Precision of quantification within species along the dilution gradient varied from R(2) of 0.96-0.54. Read-quality based processing stringency profoundly affected the abundance of one species containing long homopolymers in a read orientation-biased manner. Order-level composition of background environmental fungal communities determined from pyrosequencing data was comparable with that derived from cloning and Sanger sequencing and was not biased by read orientation. We conclude that read abundance is approximately quantitative within species, but between-species comparisons can be biased by innate sequence structure. Our results showed a trade off between sequence quality stringency and quantification. Careful consideration of sequence processing methods and community analyses are warranted when testing hypotheses using read abundance data.

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/j.1365-294x.2010.04898.x

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 515

Metadata

Authors
AMEND, A. S., SEIFERT, K. A., & BRUNS, T. D.
Venue
Molecular Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-11-03
Volume
19
Issue
24
Pages
5555-5565
ISSN
0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2124231729
Cited by
515
References
4
FWCI
12.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Quantifying microbial communities with 454 pyrosequencing: does read abundance count?: QUANTITATIVE PYROSEQUENCING OF MICROBES. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-294x.2010.04898.x
The paper
AMEND, A. S., SEIFERT, K. A., & BRUNS, T. D. (2010). Quantifying microbial communities with 454 pyrosequencing: does read abundance count?: QUANTITATIVE PYROSEQUENCING OF MICROBES. Molecular Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294x.2010.04898.x

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.