The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Normalization and microbial differential abundance strategies depend upon data characteristics
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Data from 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) amplicon sequencing present challenges to ecological and statistical interpretation. In particular, library sizes often vary over several ranges of magnitude, and the data contains many zeros. Although we are typically interested in comparing relative abundance of taxa in the ecosystem of two or more groups, we can only measure the taxon relative abundance in specimens obtained from the ecosystems. Because the comparison of taxon relative abundance in the specimen is not equivalent to the comparison of taxon relative abundance in the ecosystems, this presents a special challenge. Second, because the relative abundance of taxa in the specimen (as well as in the ecosystem) sum to 1, these are compositional data. Because the compositional data are constrained by the simplex (sum to 1) and are not unconstrained in the Euclidean space, many standard methods of analysis are not applicable. Here, we evaluate how these challenges impact the performance of existing normalization methods and differential abundance analyses. RESULTS: Effects on normalization: Most normalization methods enable successful clustering of samples according to biological origin when the groups differ substantially in their overall microbial composition. Rarefying more clearly clusters samples according to biological origin than other normalization techniques do for ordination metrics based on presence or absence. Alternate normalization measures are potentially vulnerable to artifacts due to library size. Effects on differential abundance testing: We build on a previous work to evaluate seven proposed statistical methods using rarefied as well as raw data. Our simulation studies suggest that the false discovery rates of many differential abundance-testing methods are not increased by rarefying itself, although of course rarefying results in a loss of sensitivity due to elimination of a portion of available data. For groups with large (~10×) differences in the average library size, rarefying lowers the false discovery rate. DESeq2, without addition of a constant, increased sensitivity on smaller datasets (<20 samples per group) but tends towards a higher false discovery rate with more samples, very uneven (~10×) library sizes, and/or compositional effects. For drawing inferences regarding taxon abundance in the ecosystem, analysis of composition of microbiomes (ANCOM) is not only very sensitive (for >20 samples per group) but also critically the only method tested that has a good control of false discovery rate. CONCLUSIONS: These findings guide which normalization and differential abundance techniques to use based on the data characteristics of a given study.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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
Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x · Cited by 109,482
Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2
Love, M. I., Huber, W., & Anders, S. (2014) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8 · Cited by 95,106
QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data
Caporaso, J. G., Kuczynski, J., Stombaugh, J., Bittinger, K., Bushman, F. D., Costello, E. K., Fierer, N., Peña, A. G., Goodrich, J. K., Gordon, J. I., et al. (2010) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.f.303 · Cited by 34,887
Self-citationA new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance
Anderson, M. J. (2001) · Austral Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2001.01070.pp.x · Cited by 13,828
A human gut microbial gene catalogue established by metagenomic sequencing
MetaHIT Consortium, Qin, J., Li, R., Raes, J., Arumugam, M., Burgdorf, K. S., Manichanh, C., Nielsen, T., Pons, N., Levenez, F., et al. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature08821 · Cited by 11,624
Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome
David, L. A., Maurice, C. F., Carmody, R. N., Gootenberg, D. B., Button, J. E., Wolfe, B. E., Ling, A. V., Devlin, A. S., Varma, Y., Fischbach, M. A., et al. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature12820 · Cited by 10,100
UniFrac: a New Phylogenetic Method for Comparing Microbial Communities
Lozupone, C., & Knight, R. (2005) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.71.12.8228-8235.2005 · Cited by 8,227
Self-citationFinding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis
Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. J. (1990) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470316801 · Cited by 7,344 · cited 1×
“methods by the proportion of samples correctly classified into the two clusters by the partitioning around medioids (PAM) algorithm [73, 74].”
MethodRegression Analysis of Count Data
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2013) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139013567 · Cited by 6,640
Obesity alters gut microbial ecology
Ley, R. E., Bäckhed, F., Turnbaugh, P., Lozupone, C. A., Knight, R. D., & Gordon, J. I. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0504978102 · Cited by 6,176
Self-citationLauber, C. L., Hamady, M., Knight, R., & Fierer, N. (2009) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.00335-09 · Cited by 4,063
Self-citationReagent and laboratory contamination can critically impact sequence-based microbiome analyses
Salter, S. J., Cox, M. J., Turek, E. M., Calus, S. T., Cookson, W. O., Moffatt, M. F., Turner, P., Parkhill, J., Loman, N. J., & Walker, A. W. (2014) · BMC Biology · doi:10.1186/s12915-014-0087-z · Cited by 3,463
Bacterial Community Variation in Human Body Habitats Across Space and Time
Costello, E. K., Lauber, C. L., Hamady, M., Fierer, N., Gordon, J. I., & Knight, R. (2009) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1177486 · Cited by 3,231
Self-citationAnalysis of composition of microbiomes: a novel method for studying microbial composition
Mandal, S., Van Treuren, W., White, R. A., Eggesbø, M., Knight, R., & Peddada, S. D. (2015) · Microbial Ecology in Health & Disease · doi:10.3402/mehd.v26.27663 · Cited by 1,942
Self-citationBullard, J. H., Purdom, E., Hansen, K. D., & Dudoit, S. (2010) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-11-94 · Cited by 1,680 · cited 5×
“(none, proportion, rarefying without replacement as in the hypergeometric model [75], CSS [4], logUQ [28], DESeqVS [30], and edgeR-TMM [27]) and the beta”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialFernandes, A. D., Reid, J. N., Macklaim, J. M., McMurrough, T. A., Edgell, D. R., & Gloor, G. B. (2014) · Microbiome · doi:10.1186/2049-2618-2-15 · Cited by 1,329
Moving pictures of the human microbiome
Caporaso, J. G., Lauber, C. L., Costello, E. K., Berg-Lyons, D., Gonzalez, A., Stombaugh, J., Knights, D., Gajer, P., Ravel, J., Fierer, N., et al. (2011) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2011-12-5-r50 · Cited by 1,138
Self-citationA comparison of methods for differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data
Soneson, C., & Delorenzi, M. (2013) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-14-91 · Cited by 887
Statistical Design and Analysis of RNA Sequencing Data
Auer, P. L., & Doerge, R. W. (2010) · Genetics · doi:10.1534/genetics.110.114983 · Cited by 393
Zero‐inflated models for regression analysis of count data: a study of growth and development
Cheung, Y. B. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1088 · Cited by 268
Chen, J., & Li, H. (2013) · The Annals of Applied Statistics · doi:10.1214/12-aoas592 · Cited by 191 · cited 1×
“[50, 67, 68], we include those distributions in our simulation study for purely comparative purposes.”
MethodA new relationship for rarefaction
Brewer, A., & Williamson, M. (1994) · Biodiversity and Conservation · doi:10.1007/bf00056509 · Cited by 57
Cited by
Microbiome Datasets Are Compositional: And This Is Not Optional
Gloor, G. B., Macklaim, J. M., Pawlowsky-Glahn, V., & Egozcue, J. J. (2017) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2017.02224 · Cited by 3,044
“ANCOM is being incorporated into the popular QIIME suite of microbiome analysis tools (Weiss et al., 2017).”
BackgroundMethodMultivariable association discovery in population-scale meta-omics studies
Mallick, H., Rahnavard, A., McIver, L. J., Ma, S., Zhang, Y., Nguyen, L. H., Tickle, T. L., Weingart, G., Ren, B., Schwager, E. H., et al. (2021) · PLOS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009442 · Cited by 2,596
Best practices for analysing microbiomes
Knight, R., Vrbanac, A., Taylor, B. C., Aksenov, A., Callewaert, C., Debelius, J., Gonzalez, A., Kosciolek, T., McCall, L.-I., McDonald, D., et al. (2018) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/s41579-018-0029-9 · Cited by 2,030
Self-citationStress and stability: applying the Anna Karenina principle to animal microbiomes
Zaneveld, J. R., McMinds, R., & Vega Thurber, R. (2017) · Nature Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.121 · Cited by 977
Self-citationThe Human Gut Microbiome: From Association to Modulation
Schmidt, T. S. B., Raes, J., & Bork, P. (2018) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2018.02.044 · Cited by 845
Metadata
- Authors
- Weiss, S., Xu, Z. Z., Peddada, S., Amir, A., Bittinger, K., Gonzalez, A., Lozupone, C., Zaneveld, J. R., Vázquez-Baeza, Y., Birmingham, A., Hyde, E. R., & Knight, R.
- Venue
- Microbiome
- Published
- 2017-03-03
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 27-27
- ISSN
- 2049-2618 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2592244930
- Cited by
- 2,051
- References
- 22
- FWCI
- 58.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
