The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Correcting for 16S rRNA gene copy numbers in microbiome surveys remains an unsolved problem
Open accessAbstract
The 16S ribosomal RNA gene is the most widely used marker gene in microbial ecology. Counts of 16S sequence variants, often in PCR amplicons, are used to estimate proportions of bacterial and archaeal taxa in microbial communities. Because different organisms contain different 16S gene copy numbers (GCNs), sequence variant counts are biased towards clades with greater GCNs. Several tools have recently been developed for predicting GCNs using phylogenetic methods and based on sequenced genomes, in order to correct for these biases. However, the accuracy of those predictions has not been independently assessed. Here, we systematically evaluate the predictability of 16S GCNs across bacterial and archaeal clades, based on ∼ 6,800 public sequenced genomes and using several phylogenetic methods. Further, we assess the accuracy of GCNs predicted by three recently published tools (PICRUSt, CopyRighter, and PAPRICA) over a wide range of taxa and for 635 microbial communities from varied environments. We find that regardless of the phylogenetic method tested, 16S GCNs could only be accurately predicted for a limited fraction of taxa, namely taxa with closely to moderately related representatives ( ≲ 15% divergence in the 16S rRNA gene). Consistent with this observation, we find that all considered tools exhibit low predictive accuracy when evaluated against completely sequenced genomes, in some cases explaining less than 10% of the variance. Substantial disagreement was also observed between tools ( R 2 <0.5) for the majority of tested microbial communities. The nearest sequenced taxon index (NSTI) of microbial communities, i.e., the average distance to a sequenced genome, was a strong predictor for the agreement between GCN prediction tools on non-animal-associated samples, but only a moderate predictor for animal-associated samples. We recommend against correcting for 16S GCNs in microbiome surveys by default, unless OTUs are sufficiently closely related to sequenced genomes or unless a need for true OTU proportions warrants the additional noise introduced, so that community profiles remain interpretable and comparable between 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.
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
The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools
Quast, C., Pruesse, E., Yilmaz, P., Gerken, J., Schweer, T., Yarza, P., Peplies, J., & Glöckner, F. O. (2012) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gks1219 · Cited by 33,055
FLASH: fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies
Magoč, T., & Salzberg, S. L. (2011) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btr507 · Cited by 15,366
Parks, D. H., Imelfort, M., Skennerton, C. T., Hugenholtz, P., & Tyson, G. W. (2015) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.186072.114 · Cited by 12,496
Phylogenies and the Comparative Method
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284325 · Cited by 9,793
Predictive functional profiling of microbial communities using 16S rRNA marker gene sequences
Langille, M. G. I., Zaneveld, J., Caporaso, J. G., McDonald, D., Knights, D., Reyes, J. A., Clemente, J. C., Burkepile, D. E., Vega Thurber, R. L., Knight, R., et al. (2013) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.2676 · Cited by 9,116
Efficient comparative phylogenetics on large trees
Louca, S., & Doebeli, M. (2018) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btx701 · Cited by 564
Self-citation
Cited by
Chklovski, A., Parks, D. H., Woodcroft, B. J., & Tyson, G. W. (2023) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-023-01940-w · Cited by 1,705
Marine Plastic Debris: A New Surface for Microbial Colonization
Wright, R. J., Erni-Cassola, G., Zadjelovic, V., Latva, M., & Christie-Oleza, J. A. (2020) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c02305 · Cited by 513
Pérez-Cobas, A. E., Gomez-Valero, L., & Buchrieser, C. (2020) · Microbial Genomics · doi:10.1099/mgen.0.000409 · Cited by 314
Identifying biases and their potential solutions in human microbiome studies
Nearing, J. T., Comeau, A. M., & Langille, M. G. I. (2021) · Microbiome · doi:10.1186/s40168-021-01059-0 · Cited by 240
Genotypic and Phenotypic Diversity among Human Isolates of Akkermansia muciniphila
Becken, B., Davey, L., Middleton, D. R., Mueller, K. D., Sharma, A., Holmes, Z. C., Dallow, E., Remick, B., Barton, G. M., David, L. A., et al. (2021) · mBio · doi:10.1128/mbio.00478-21 · Cited by 125
Metadata
- Authors
- Louca, S., Doebeli, M., & Parfrey, L. W.
- Venue
- Microbiome
- Published
- 2018-02-26
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 41-41
- ISSN
- 2049-2618 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2794904294
- Cited by
- 753
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 42.01
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Correcting for 16S rRNA gene copy numbers in microbiome surveys remains an unsolved problem. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s40168-018-0420-9
- The paper
- Louca, S., Doebeli, M., & Parfrey, L. W. (2018). Correcting for 16S rRNA gene copy numbers in microbiome surveys remains an unsolved problem. Microbiome. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-018-0420-9
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.