Cited by 474Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGut microbiota and healthMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluating the Information Content of Shallow Shotgun Metagenomics

Open access
Hillmann, Benjamin, Al-Ghalith, Gabriel A., Shields-Cutler, Robin R., Zhu, Qiyun, Gohl, Daryl M., Beckman, Kenneth B., Knight, Rob, Knights, Dan·2018·mSystems

Abstract

A common refrain in recent microbiome-related academic meetings is that the field needs to move away from broad taxonomic surveys using 16S sequencing and toward more powerful longitudinal studies using shotgun sequencing. However, performing deep shotgun sequencing in large longitudinal studies remains prohibitively expensive for all but the most well-funded research labs and consortia, which leads many researchers to choose 16S sequencing for large studies, followed by deep shotgun sequencing on a subset of targeted samples. Here, we show that shallow- or moderate-depth shotgun sequencing may be used by researchers to obtain species-level taxonomic and functional data at approximately the same cost as amplicon sequencing. While shallow shotgun sequencing is not intended to replace deep shotgun sequencing for strain-level characterization, we recommend that microbiome scientists consider using shallow shotgun sequencing instead of 16S sequencing for large-scale human microbiome studies.

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 · 10.1128/msystems.00069-18

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

FIG 1 Information content of deep and shallow shotgun sequencing. (A) Percentages of raw shotgun DNA sequences that are unique to one bacterial species across different human body habitats (7 distinct plaque samples, 30 distinct samples from other body sites). (B, C) Principal-coordinate analysis of Bray-Curtis beta diversity using deep (B) and shallow (C) sequencing (sample sizes were as described for panel A). (D, E) Shannon diversity estimates at varied sequencing depths for human stool (D) and subgingival plaque microbiomes (E) (sample sizes were as described for panel B). Boxplots show minimums, first quartiles, medians, second quartiles, and maximums, with outliers beyond 1.5 times the interquartile range plotted individually.
FIG 1 Information content of deep and shallow shotgun sequencing. (A) Percentages of raw shotgun DNA sequences that are unique to one bacterial species across different human body habitats (7 distinct plaque samples, 30 distinct samples from other body sites). (B, C) Principal-coordinate analysis of Bray-Curtis beta diversity using deep (B) and shallow (C) sequencing (sample sizes were as described for panel A). (D, E) Shannon diversity estimates at varied sequencing depths for human stool (D) and subgingival plaque microbiomes (E) (sample sizes were as described for panel B). Boxplots show minimums, first quartiles, medians, second quartiles, and maximums, with outliers beyond 1.5 times the interquartile range plotted individually.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIG 2 Comparison of species and function profiles with ultradeep sequencing data. (A, B) Correlation with ground truth species (A) and KEGG Orthology group (KO) (B) profile for known genes present in the reference database at different sequencing depths, showing that as few as 0.5 million sequences recover nearly the full species and function profiles (ground truth based on 2.5 billion reads per sample; 4,394 genes and 694 species were used at each subsampling level from the subject 1 ultradeep sequencing sample; comparable results from subject 2 are not shown). Gene and species profiles recovered from the ultradeep data include only direct matches to genes and genomes present in the database; de novo assembly of novel genes and contigs from deep data are expected to yield additional uncharacterized gene content and is not possible with shallow shotgun data. (C, D) Scatterplots of species (C) and KOs (D) at 0.5 million versus 2.5 billion reads per sample (we used the same sample size as used for panel A and B above).
FIG 2 Comparison of species and function profiles with ultradeep sequencing data. (A, B) Correlation with ground truth species (A) and KEGG Orthology group (KO) (B) profile for known genes present in the reference database at different sequencing depths, showing that as few as 0.5 million sequences recover nearly the full species and function profiles (ground truth based on 2.5 billion reads per sample; 4,394 genes and 694 species were used at each subsampling level from the subject 1 ultradeep sequencing sample; comparable results from subject 2 are not shown). Gene and species profiles recovered from the ultradeep data include only direct matches to genes and genomes present in the database; de novo assembly of novel genes and contigs from deep data are expected to yield additional uncharacterized gene content and is not possible with shallow shotgun data. (C, D) Scatterplots of species (C) and KOs (D) at 0.5 million versus 2.5 billion reads per sample (we used the same sample size as used for panel A and B above).CC BY · PubMed Central
FIG 3 Biomarker discovery using shallow shotgun sequencing. (A, B) Precision, recall for per-read species binning of different metagenomics analysis tools (“95” and “98” refer to the minimum alignment identity threshold used; 5 distinct replicates [rep] were performed per subsampling depth, and error bars show standard deviations). (C) Stacked bar plot of species abundances recovered from HMP mock community shotgun sequencing data. (D) Negative log10 false-discovery rate (FDR)-corrected P values using Mann-Whitney U tests for species associated with type 2 diabetes (17), compared between deep and shallow shotgun sequencing (43 healthy patients, 53 patients with type 2 diabetes).
FIG 3 Biomarker discovery using shallow shotgun sequencing. (A, B) Precision, recall for per-read species binning of different metagenomics analysis tools (“95” and “98” refer to the minimum alignment identity threshold used; 5 distinct replicates [rep] were performed per subsampling depth, and error bars show standard deviations). (C) Stacked bar plot of species abundances recovered from HMP mock community shotgun sequencing data. (D) Negative log10 false-discovery rate (FDR)-corrected P values using Mann-Whitney U tests for species associated with type 2 diabetes (17), compared between deep and shallow shotgun sequencing (43 healthy patients, 53 patients with type 2 diabetes).CC BY · PubMed Central
FIG 4 Comparison of 16S sequencing and shallow shotgun recovery of species-level taxa. (A) Histogram of average Pearson correlation (R-squared) of species profiles between 16S sequencing and shallow shotgun sequencing from the same HMP sample (R-squared = 0.918), compared to the permutation-based null distribution of R-squared values for random pairings (P < 0.001). (B) Scatterplot of relative abundances of species in shallow shotgun sequencing versus 16S sequencing from the same HMP samples. Species found in only one data type are shown in a different color. (C) Fractions of all observed species, with relative abundance accounted for by species found by 16S sequencing only, shallow shotgun sequencing only, or both.
FIG 4 Comparison of 16S sequencing and shallow shotgun recovery of species-level taxa. (A) Histogram of average Pearson correlation (R-squared) of species profiles between 16S sequencing and shallow shotgun sequencing from the same HMP sample (R-squared = 0.918), compared to the permutation-based null distribution of R-squared values for random pairings (P < 0.001). (B) Scatterplot of relative abundances of species in shallow shotgun sequencing versus 16S sequencing from the same HMP samples. Species found in only one data type are shown in a different color. (C) Fractions of all observed species, with relative abundance accounted for by species found by 16S sequencing only, shallow shotgun sequencing only, or both.CC BY · PubMed Central

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

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?

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 26 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 474

Metadata

Authors
Hillmann, B., Al-Ghalith, G. A., Shields-Cutler, R. R., Zhu, Q., Gohl, D. M., Beckman, K. B., Knight, R., & Knights, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
  • Biotechnology Institute, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Knights, Dan
Venue
mSystems
Published
2018-10-30
Volume
3
Issue
6
ISSN
2379-5077 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2951076599
Cited by
474
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 66 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 68 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 2
FWCI
15.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • mSystems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
HHS | National Institutes of Health (R01AI121383, P01DK078669)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
Keywords
16S rRNA gene sequencing, functional metagenomics, amplicon sequencing

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