Cited by 35Scientific Computing and Data ManagementGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesResearch Data Management Practices

REPRODUCIBLE RESEARCH WORKFLOW IN R FOR THE ANALYSIS OF PERSONALIZED HUMAN MICROBIOME DATA

Open access
CALLAHAN, BENJAMIN, PROCTOR, DIANA, RELMAN, DAVID, FUKUYAMA, JULIA, HOLMES, SUSAN·2016·Biocomputing 2016

Abstract

This article presents a reproducible research workflow for amplicon-based microbiome studies in personalized medicine created using Bioconductor packages and the knitr markdown interface.We show that sometimes a multiplicity of choices and lack of consistent documentation at each stage of the sequential processing pipeline used for the analysis of microbiome data can lead to spurious results. We propose its replacement with reproducible and documented analysis using R packages dada2, knitr, and phyloseq. This workflow implements both key stages of amplicon analysis: the initial filtering and denoising steps needed to construct taxonomic feature tables from error-containing sequencing reads (dada2), and the exploratory and inferential analysis of those feature tables and associated sample metadata (phyloseq). This workow facilitates reproducible interrogation of the full set of choices required in microbiome studies. We present several examples in which we leverage existing packages for analysis in a way that allows easy sharing and modification by others, and give pointers to articles that depend on this reproducible workflow for the study of longitudinal and spatial series analyses of the vaginal microbiome in pregnancy and the oral microbiome in humans with healthy dentition and intra-oral tissues.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1142/9789814749411_0018

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 absence of standard operating procedures and accepted threshold values, especially for molecular methods, makes comparison and interpretation of results challenging.

    “the absence of standard operating procedures (SOPs) and accepted threshold values, especially for molecular methods, make the comparison and the interpretation of the results challenging (Callahan et al., 2016).”

    From Soil quality – A critical review (2018) · cites this paper as Callahan et al., 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
CALLAHAN, B., PROCTOR, D., RELMAN, D., FUKUYAMA, J., & HOLMES, S.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Venue
Biocomputing 2016
Published
2015-11-18
Volume
21
Pages
183-194
OpenAlex
W2334395661
Cited by
35
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
7.01
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing (PSB) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM086884, R01GM099534)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01AI112401, T32AI007328)
  • National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (R01DE023113)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
Keywords
reproducible workflows, human microbiome, personalized medicine, amplicon sequencing, DADA2, phyloseq, knitr, Bioconductor, vaginal microbiota, oral microbiota, pregnancy
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Mouth, Pregnancy, Software, Vagina, Reproducibility of Results, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Computational Biology, Principal Component Analysis, Workflow, Precision Medicine, Microbial Consortia, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing, Microbiota

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