Cited by 8,227Microbial Community Ecology and PhysiologyGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesPolar Research and Ecology

UniFrac: a New Phylogenetic Method for Comparing Microbial Communities

Open access
Lozupone, Catherine, Knight, Rob·2005·Applied and Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

We introduce here a new method for computing differences between microbial communities based on phylogenetic information. This method, UniFrac, measures the phylogenetic distance between sets of taxa in a phylogenetic tree as the fraction of the branch length of the tree that leads to descendants from either one environment or the other, but not both. UniFrac can be used to determine whether communities are significantly different, to compare many communities simultaneously using clustering and ordination techniques, and to measure the relative contributions of different factors, such as chemistry and geography, to similarities between samples. We demonstrate the utility of UniFrac by applying it to published 16S rRNA gene libraries from cultured isolates and environmental clones of bacteria in marine sediment, water, and ice. Our results reveal that (i) cultured isolates from ice, water, and sediment resemble each other and environmental clone sequences from sea ice, but not environmental clone sequences from sediment and water; (ii) the geographical location does not correlate strongly with bacterial community differences in ice and sediment from the Arctic and Antarctic; and (iii) bacterial communities differ between terrestrially impacted seawater (whether polar or temperate) and warm oligotrophic seawater, whereas those in individual seawater samples are not more similar to each other than to those in sediment or ice samples. These results illustrate that UniFrac provides a new way of characterizing microbial communities, using the wealth of environmental rRNA sequences, and allows quantitative insight into the factors that underlie the distribution of lineages among environments.

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 · 10.1128/aem.71.12.8228-8235.2005

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The multiple sequence alignment obtained from BLS enables improved UniFrac effect size estimation for many variables known to be important to human digestive health.

    “Our results show that the multiple sequence alignment (MSA) obtained from BLS (Fig. 1b and Methods) improves microbial phylogeny inference compared to other alignment methods and enables improved UniFrac26 effect size estimation for many variables known to be important to human digestive health.”
  • Principal Coordinates Unweighted UniFrac analysis separated ileum and colon samples along the first component and the two rooms along PC2 on Food A.

    “Principal Coordinates Unweighted UniFrac analysis 20 showed separation of ileum and colon samples along the first component, whereas the two rooms clearly separated along PC2 on Food A (Fig1A and B).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [21]Kanawaga, T. 2003. Bias and artifacts in multitemplate polymerase chain reaction. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 96:317-323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lozupone, C., & Knight, R.
Affiliations
University of Colorado Boulder (US)
Corresponding author
Knight, Rob
Venue
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
Published
2005-12
Volume
71
Issue
12
Pages
8228-8235
ISSN
  • 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-5336
OpenAlex
W2170024099
Cited by
8,227
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 311 · 2025: 420 · 2024: 500 · 2023: 564 · 2022: 681 · 2021: 832 · 2020: 766 · 2019: 654 · 2018: 676 · 2017: 607 · 2016: 508 · 2015: 401 · 2014: 363 · 2013: 281 · 2012: 210
FWCI
31.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied and Environmental Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32-GM08759, T32GM008759, T32GM142607)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Polar Research and Ecology
Keywords
UniFrac, phylogenetic distance, microbial community comparison, 16S rRNA gene library, bacterial communities, community clustering, ordination, sea ice bacteria, marine sediment bacteria, marine bacteria
MeSH terms
Bacteria, Genetic Techniques, Geography, Phylogeny, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S

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