Cited by 248Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesMicrobial Community Ecology and PhysiologyEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies

Metagenomic Sequencing of an In Vitro-Simulated Microbial Community

Open access
Morgan, Jenna L., Darling, Aaron E., Eisen, Jonathan A.·2010·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Microbial life dominates the earth, but many species are difficult or even impossible to study under laboratory conditions. Sequencing DNA directly from the environment, a technique commonly referred to as metagenomics, is an important tool for cataloging microbial life. This culture-independent approach involves collecting samples that include microbes in them, extracting DNA from the samples, and sequencing the DNA. A sample may contain many different microorganisms, macroorganisms, and even free-floating environmental DNA. A fundamental challenge in metagenomics has been estimating the abundance of organisms in a sample based on the frequency with which the organism's DNA was observed in reads generated via DNA sequencing. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We created mixtures of ten microbial species for which genome sequences are known. Each mixture contained an equal number of cells of each species. We then extracted DNA from the mixtures, sequenced the DNA, and measured the frequency with which genomic regions from each organism was observed in the sequenced DNA. We found that the observed frequency of reads mapping to each organism did not reflect the equal numbers of cells that were known to be included in each mixture. The relative organism abundances varied significantly depending on the DNA extraction and sequencing protocol utilized. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: We describe a new data resource for measuring the accuracy of metagenomic binning methods, created by in vitro-simulation of a metagenomic community. Our in vitro simulation can be used to complement previous in silico benchmark studies. In constructing a synthetic community and sequencing its metagenome, we encountered several sources of observation bias that likely affect most metagenomic experiments to date and present challenges for comparative metagenomic studies. DNA preparation methods have a particularly profound effect in our study, implying that samples prepared with different protocols are not suitable for comparative metagenomics.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0010209

Cites

54 of 54 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?

  • Previous detailed investigations of variables such as DNA extraction method, like the present results, enriched for broad classes of Gram-negative rather than Gram-positive bacteria because of technical rather than biological variables.

    “Previous detailed investigations of specific variables in microbiome experiments such as DNA extraction method have, in common with the results we report, enriched for broad classes of Gram-negative rather than Gram-positive bacteria due to technical rather than biological variables9, 24, 27, 28.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morgan, J. L., Darling, A. E., & Eisen, J. A.
Affiliations
  • Joint Genome Institute (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Eisen, Jonathan A.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2010-04-16
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
e10209
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2073909558
Cited by
248
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 24
FWCI
11.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
  • OPUS - Open Publications of UTS Scholars (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (DEAC02-05CH11231, 0630765)
  • U.S. Department of Energy (-AC02-05CH11231, Contract No. DE-AC02-05-CH11231, 05CH11231, No. DE-AC02-05-CH11231, DE AC02 05CH11231, DE-AC02-)
  • Joint Genome Institute (AC02-05CH11231, DE–AC02–05CH11231)
  • Office of Science (No. DE-AC02- 05-CH11231, DEAC02–05CH11231, AC02-05CH11231, DE-AC02, 05CH11231, Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231)
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (AC02‐05CH11231, DE-AC02-05CH11231, No. DE-AC02-05CH11231, Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231, 05CH11231)
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
metagenomics, synthetic microbial communities, in vitro simulation, metagenome binning, relative abundance estimation, observation bias, DNA extraction methods, sequencing protocols
MeSH terms
Biometry, Computer Simulation, DNA, Bacterial, Genome, Bacterial, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Metagenomics

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