Cited by 240Gut microbiota and healthGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology

Identifying biases and their potential solutions in human microbiome studies

Open access
Nearing, Jacob T., Comeau, André M., Langille, Morgan G. I.·2021·Microbiome

Abstract

Advances in DNA sequencing technology have vastly improved the ability of researchers to explore the microbial inhabitants of the human body. Unfortunately, while these studies have uncovered the importance of these microbial communities to our health, they often do not result in similar findings. One possible reason for the disagreement in these results is due to the multitude of systemic biases that are introduced during sequence-based microbiome studies. These biases begin with sample collection and continue to be introduced throughout the entire experiment leading to an observed community that is significantly altered from the true underlying microbial composition. In this review, we will highlight the various steps in typical sequence-based human microbiome studies where significant bias can be introduced, and we will review the current efforts within the field that aim to reduce the impact of these biases.

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/s40168-021-01059-0

Cites

168 of 168 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?

  • Concerns have been raised regarding limitations and risk of bias associated with the use of relative abundance due to technical variation, which may lead to erroneous interpretations founded on proportional profiling.

    “However, concerns have been raised regarding the limitations and risk of bias associated with the use of relative abundance due to technical variation, which may lead to erroneous interpretations founded on proportional profiling.717,718”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. [45]Brooks JP Edwards DJ Harwich MD Rivera MC Fettweis JM Serrano MG The truth about metagenomics: quantifying and counteracting bias in 16S rRNA studies Ecological and evolutionary microbiology BMC Microbiol 2015 15 66 10.1186/s12866-015-0351-6 25880246 PMC4433096 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [62]Hornung BVH, Zwittink RD, Kuijper EJ. Issues and current standards of controls in microbiome research. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2019;95 Oxford University Press. [cited 2020 Feb 18]. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/femsec/article/doi/10.1093/femsec/fiz045/5435435. PMC6469980 30997495 · DOI
  3. [70]Wages JM, Decheng CAI, Fowler AK. Removal of contamination DNA from PCR reagents by ultrafiltration. Biotechniques. 1994;16(6):1014–1017. 8074862
  4. [89]Wu JY Jiang XT Jiang YX Lu SY Zou F Zhou HW Effects of polymerase, template dilution and cycle number on PCR based 16 S rRNA diversity analysis using the deep sequencing method BMC Microbiol 2010 10 1 7 10.1186/1471-2180-10-1 20937143 PMC2964677 · DOI
  5. [112]Olson ND Treangen TJ Hill CM Cepeda-Espinoza V Ghurye J Koren S Metagenomic assembly through the lens of validation: recent advances in assessing and improving the quality of genomes assembled from metagenomes Brief Bioinform 2019 20 1140 1150 10.1093/bib/bbx098 28968737 PMC6781575 · DOI
  6. [125]Edgar RC. UNOISE2: improved error-correction for Illumina 16S and ITS amplicon sequencing. bioRxiv. 2016; Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Available from: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/10/15/081257.abstract.
  7. [146]Breitwieser FP, Lu J, Salzberg SL. A review of methods and databases for metagenomic classification and assembly. [cited 2020 Feb 19]; Available from: https://academic.oup.com/bib/article-abstract/doi/10.1093/bib/bbx120/4210288/A-review-of-methods-and-databases-for-metagenomic. PMC6781581 29028872 · DOI
  8. [177]Mirzayi C, Renson A, Zohra F, Elsafoury S, Kasselman L, van de Wijgert J, et al. Strengthening The Organizing and Reporting of Microbiome Studies (STORMS). bioRxiv. 2020:2020.06.24.167353 Available from: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2020/06/24/2020.06.24.167353.abstract.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nearing, J. T., Comeau, A. M., & Langille, M. G. I.
Affiliations
Dalhousie University (CA)
Corresponding author
Langille, Morgan G. I.
Venue
Microbiome
Published
2021-05-18
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
113-113
ISSN
2049-2618 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3162248102
Cited by
240
References
168
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 5
FWCI
4.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Microbiome (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Nova Scotia Health Research Foundation
  • Faculty of Graduate Studies, Dalhousie University
  • Canadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (2016-05039)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
Keywords
human microbiome, sequencing bias, bias mitigation, sample collection, microbial community composition, reproducibility, metagenomics
MeSH terms
Humans, Specimen Handling, Bias, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Metagenomics, 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