Cited by 405Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesMicrobial Community Ecology and PhysiologyEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies

A comprehensive benchmarking study of protocols and sequencing platforms for 16S rRNA community profiling

Open access
D’Amore, Rosalinda, Ijaz, Umer Zeeshan, Schirmer, Melanie, Kenny, John G., Gregory, Richard, Darby, Alistair C., Shakya, Migun, Podar, Mircea +2 more·2016·BMC Genomics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the last 5 years, the rapid pace of innovations and improvements in sequencing technologies has completely changed the landscape of metagenomic and metagenetic experiments. Therefore, it is critical to benchmark the various methodologies for interrogating the composition of microbial communities, so that we can assess their strengths and limitations. The most common phylogenetic marker for microbial community diversity studies is the 16S ribosomal RNA gene and in the last 10 years the field has moved from sequencing a small number of amplicons and samples to more complex studies where thousands of samples and multiple different gene regions are interrogated. RESULTS: We assembled 2 synthetic communities with an even (EM) and uneven (UM) distribution of archaeal and bacterial strains and species, as metagenomic control material, to assess performance of different experimental strategies. The 2 synthetic communities were used in this study, to highlight the limitations and the advantages of the leading sequencing platforms: MiSeq (Illumina), The Pacific Biosciences RSII, 454 GS-FLX/+ (Roche), and IonTorrent (Life Technologies). We describe an extensive survey based on synthetic communities using 3 experimental designs (fusion primers, universal tailed tag, ligated adaptors) across the 9 hypervariable 16S rDNA regions. We demonstrate that library preparation methodology can affect data interpretation due to different error and chimera rates generated during the procedure. The observed community composition was always biased, to a degree that depended on the platform, sequenced region and primer choice. However, crucially, our analysis suggests that 16S rRNA sequencing is still quantitative, in that relative changes in abundance of taxa between samples can be recovered, despite these biases. CONCLUSION: We have assessed a range of experimental conditions across several next generation sequencing platforms using the most up-to-date configurations. We propose that the choice of sequencing platform and experimental design needs to be taken into consideration in the early stage of a project by running a small trial consisting of several hypervariable regions to quantify the discriminatory power of each region. We also suggest that the use of a synthetic community as a positive control would be beneficial to identify the potential biases and procedural drawbacks that may lead to data misinterpretation. The results of this study will serve as a guideline for making decisions on which experimental condition and sequencing platform to consider to achieve the best microbial profiling.

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 · 10.1186/s12864-015-2194-9

Cites

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?

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 39 · Cited by 405

Authors
D’Amore, R., Ijaz, U. Z., Schirmer, M., Kenny, J. G., Gregory, R., Darby, A. C., Shakya, M., Podar, M., Quince, C., & Hall, N.
Affiliations
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • Dartmouth College (US)
  • Oak Ridge National Laboratory (US)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Quince, Christopher
  • Hall, Neil
Venue
BMC Genomics
Published
2016-01-14
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
55-55
ISSN
1471-2164 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2239696860
Cited by
405
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 20
FWCI
26.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Genomics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Technology Strategy Board
  • NERC
  • MRC (MR/M50161X/1)
  • U.S. Department of Energy
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Keywords
16S rRNA gene sequencing, microbial community analysis, synthetic microbial communities, library preparation bias, chimera formation, hypervariable region, primer design, MiSeq, Ion Torrent, metagenomics
MeSH terms
Bacteria, Phylogeny, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Genome, Bacterial, Benchmarking, Metagenomics, High-Throughput Nucleotide 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