Cited by 298Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGut microbiota and healthMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology

A comparison of sequencing platforms and bioinformatics pipelines for compositional analysis of the gut microbiome

Open access
Allali, Imane, Arnold, Jason W., Roach, Jeffrey, Cadenas, Maria Belen, Butz, Natasha, Hassan, Hosni M., Koci, Matthew, Ballou, Anne +3 more·2017·BMC Microbiology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Advancements in Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technologies regarding throughput, read length and accuracy had a major impact on microbiome research by significantly improving 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing. As rapid improvements in sequencing platforms and new data analysis pipelines are introduced, it is essential to evaluate their capabilities in specific applications. The aim of this study was to assess whether the same project-specific biological conclusions regarding microbiome composition could be reached using different sequencing platforms and bioinformatics pipelines. RESULTS: Chicken cecum microbiome was analyzed by 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing using Illumina MiSeq, Ion Torrent PGM, and Roche 454 GS FLX Titanium platforms, with standard and modified protocols for library preparation. We labeled the bioinformatics pipelines included in our analysis QIIME1 and QIIME2 (de novo OTU picking [not to be confused with QIIME version 2 commonly referred to as QIIME2]), QIIME3 and QIIME4 (open reference OTU picking), UPARSE1 and UPARSE2 (each pair differs only in the use of chimera depletion methods), and DADA2 (for Illumina data only). GS FLX+ yielded the longest reads and highest quality scores, while MiSeq generated the largest number of reads after quality filtering. Declines in quality scores were observed starting at bases 150-199 for GS FLX+ and bases 90-99 for MiSeq. Scores were stable for PGM-generated data. Overall microbiome compositional profiles were comparable between platforms; however, average relative abundance of specific taxa varied depending on sequencing platform, library preparation method, and bioinformatics analysis. Specifically, QIIME with de novo OTU picking yielded the highest number of unique species and alpha diversity was reduced with UPARSE and DADA2 compared to QIIME. CONCLUSIONS: The three platforms compared in this study were capable of discriminating samples by treatment, despite differences in diversity and abundance, leading to similar biological conclusions. Our results demonstrate that while there were differences in depth of coverage and phylogenetic diversity, all workflows revealed comparable treatment effects on microbial diversity. To increase reproducibility and reliability and to retain consistency between similar studies, it is important to consider the impact on data quality and relative abundance of taxa when selecting NGS platforms and analysis tools for microbiome studies.

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/s12866-017-1101-8

Cites

72 of 72 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?

  • Bias can be introduced throughout all stages of sample processing, including selection of sample collection protocol, preservative choice, storage temperature, DNA extraction protocol, library preparation, sequencing platform, and bioinformatics analysis pipeline.

    “Bias can be introduced throughout all stages of sample processing, including the selection of sample collection protocol, preservative choice, storage temperature, DNA extraction protocol, library preparation, sequencing platform, and bioinformatics analysis pipeline.720–723”

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

1 of the 73 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Allali, I., Arnold, J. W., Roach, J., Cadenas, M. B., Butz, N., Hassan, H. M., Koci, M., Ballou, A., Mendoza, M., Ali, R., & Azcarate-Peril, M. A.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • North Carolina State University (US)
Venue
BMC Microbiology
Published
2017-09-13
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
194-194
ISSN
1471-2180 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2754041971
Cited by
298
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 3
FWCI
10.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Microbiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture (2012-68003-19621)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30 DK34987)
  • Fulbright Commission
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
gut microbiota, 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, sequencing platform comparison, bioinformatics pipeline comparison, QIIME, DADA2, library preparation, alpha diversity, reproducibility, Ion Torrent PGM, Illumina MiSeq
MeSH terms
Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Analysis of Variance, Animals, Bacteria, Base Sequence, Cecum, Chickens, DNA, Bacterial, Phylogeny, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Statistics as Topic, Reproducibility of Results, Gene Library, Multivariate Analysis, Computational Biology, Biodiversity, Microbial Consortia, 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