The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Integration of Microbial Ecology and Statistics: a Test To Compare Gene Libraries
Open accessAbstract
Libraries of 16S rRNA genes provide insight into the membership of microbial communities. Statistical methods help to determine whether differences in library composition are artifacts of sampling or are due to underlying differences in the communities from which they are derived. To contribute to a growing statistical framework for comparing 16S rRNA libraries, we present a computer program, ∫-LIBSHUFF, which calculates the integral form of the Cramér-von Mises statistic. This implementation builds upon the LIBSHUFF program, which uses an approximation of the statistic and makes a number of modifications that improve precision and accuracy. Once ∫-LIBSHUFF calculates the P values, when pairwise comparisons are tested at the 0.05 level, the probability of falsely identifying a significant P value is 0.098 for a study with two libraries, 0.265 for three libraries, and 0.460 for four libraries. The potential negative effects of making the multiple pairwise comparisons necessitate correcting for the increased likelihood that differences between treatments are due to chance and do not reflect biological differences. Using ∫-LIBSHUFF, we found that previously published 16S rRNA gene libraries constructed from Scottish and Wisconsin soils contained different bacterial lineages. We also analyzed the published libraries constructed for the zebrafish gut microflora and found statistically significant changes in the community during development of the host. These analyses illustrate the power of ∫-LIBSHUFF to detect differences between communities, providing the basis for ecological inference about the association of soil productivity or host gene expression and microbial community composition.
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
Cited by
UniFrac: a New Phylogenetic Method for Comparing Microbial Communities
Lozupone, C., & Knight, R. (2005) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.71.12.8228-8235.2005 · Cited by 8,227
Diversity of the Human Intestinal Microbial Flora
Eckburg, P. B., Bik, E. M., Bernstein, C. N., Purdom, E., Dethlefsen, L., Sargent, M., Gill, S. R., Nelson, K. E., & Relman, D. A. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1110591 · Cited by 7,913
Symbiotic gut microbes modulate human metabolic phenotypes
Li, M., Wang, B., Zhang, M., Rantalainen, M., Wang, S., Zhou, H., Zhang, Y., Shen, J., Pang, X., Zhang, M., et al. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0712038105 · Cited by 1,144
Kassinen, A., Krogius-Kurikka, L., Mäkivuokko, H., Rinttilä, T., Paulin, L., Corander, J., Malinen, E., Apajalahti, J., & Palva, A. (2007) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2007.04.005 · Cited by 1,002
Daniel, R. (2005) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro1160 · Cited by 862
Metadata
- Authors
- Schloss, P. D., Larget, B. R., & Handelsman, J.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2004-09
- Volume
- 70
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 5485-5492
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W1976259670
- Cited by
- 349
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 22.05
- 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: Integration of Microbial Ecology and Statistics: a Test To Compare Gene Libraries. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.70.9.5485-5492.2004
- The paper
- Schloss, P. D., Larget, B. R., & Handelsman, J. (2004). Integration of Microbial Ecology and Statistics: a Test To Compare Gene Libraries. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.70.9.5485-5492.2004
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.