The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing and Improving Methods Used in Operational Taxonomic Unit-Based Approaches for 16S rRNA Gene Sequence Analysis
Open accessAbstract
In spite of technical advances that have provided increases in orders of magnitude in sequencing coverage, microbial ecologists still grapple with how to interpret the genetic diversity represented by the 16S rRNA gene. Two widely used approaches put sequences into bins based on either their similarity to reference sequences (i.e., phylotyping) or their similarity to other sequences in the community (i.e., operational taxonomic units [OTUs]). In the present study, we investigate three issues related to the interpretation and implementation of OTU-based methods. First, we confirm the conventional wisdom that it is impossible to create an accurate distance-based threshold for defining taxonomic levels and instead advocate for a consensus-based method of classifying OTUs. Second, using a taxonomic-independent approach, we show that the average neighbor clustering algorithm produces more robust OTUs than other hierarchical and heuristic clustering algorithms. Third, we demonstrate several steps to reduce the computational burden of forming OTUs without sacrificing the robustness of the OTU assignment. Finally, by blending these solutions, we propose a new heuristic that has a minimal effect on the robustness of OTUs and significantly reduces the necessary time and memory requirements. The ability to quickly and accurately assign sequences to OTUs and then obtain taxonomic information for those OTUs will greatly improve OTU-based analyses and overcome many of the challenges encountered with phylotype-based methods.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Greengenes, a Chimera-Checked 16S rRNA Gene Database and Workbench Compatible with ARB
DeSantis, T. Z., Hugenholtz, P., Larsen, N., Rojas, M., Brodie, E. L., Keller, K., Huber, T., Dalevi, D., Hu, P., & Andersen, G. L. (2006) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.03006-05 · Cited by 10,891
Ironing out the wrinkles in the rare biosphere through improved OTU clustering
Huse, S. M., Welch, D. M., Morrison, H. G., & Sogin, M. L. (2010) · Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2010.02193.x · Cited by 1,346
Cited by
Reducing the Effects of PCR Amplification and Sequencing Artifacts on 16S rRNA-Based Studies
Schloss, P. D., Gevers, D., & Westcott, S. L. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027310 · Cited by 2,112
Self-citationUrsell, L. K., Metcalf, J. L., Parfrey, L. W., & Knight, R. (2012) · Nutrition Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1753-4887.2012.00493.x · Cited by 1,255
Characterization of the gut microbiome using 16S or shotgun metagenomics
Jovel, J., Patterson, J., Wang, W., Hotte, N., O'Keefe, S., Mitchel, T., Perry, T., Kao, D., Mason, A. L., Madsen, K. L., et al. (2016) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2016.00459 · Cited by 942
Knief, C. (2015) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2015.01346 · Cited by 594
The Madness of Microbiome: Attempting To Find Consensus “Best Practice” for 16S Microbiome Studies
Pollock, J., Glendinning, L., Wisedchanwet, T., & Watson, M. (2018) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.02627-17 · Cited by 575
Metadata
- Authors
- Schloss, P. D., & Westcott, S. L.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2011-05-15
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 3219-3226
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W2156619206
- Cited by
- 726
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 16.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Assessing and Improving Methods Used in Operational Taxonomic Unit-Based Approaches for 16S rRNA Gene Sequence Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.02810-10
- The paper
- Schloss, P. D., & Westcott, S. L. (2011). Assessing and Improving Methods Used in Operational Taxonomic Unit-Based Approaches for 16S rRNA Gene Sequence Analysis. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.02810-10
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.