Cited by 361Gut microbiota and healthMicrobial Community Ecology and PhysiologyOral microbiology and periodontitis research

The Power of Microbiome Studies: Some Considerations on Which Alpha and Beta Metrics to Use and How to Report Results

Open access
Kers, Jannigje Gerdien, Saccenti, Edoardo·2022·Frontiers in Microbiology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Since sequencing techniques have become less expensive, larger sample sizes are applicable for microbiota studies. The aim of this study is to show how, and to what extent, different diversity metrics and different compositions of the microbiota influence the needed sample size to observe dissimilar groups. Empirical 16S rRNA amplicon sequence data obtained from animal experiments, observational human data, and simulated data were used to perform retrospective power calculations. A wide variation of alpha diversity and beta diversity metrics were used to compare the different microbiota datasets and the effect on the sample size. Results: Our data showed that beta diversity metrics are the most sensitive to observe differences as compared with alpha diversity metrics. The structure of the data influenced which alpha metrics are the most sensitive. Regarding beta diversity, the Bray–Curtis metric is in general the most sensitive to observe differences between groups, resulting in lower sample size and potential publication bias. Conclusion: We recommend performing power calculations and to use multiple diversity metrics as an outcome measure. To improve microbiota studies, awareness needs to be raised on the sensitivity and bias for microbiota research outcomes created by the used metrics rather than biological differences. We have seen that different alpha and beta diversity metrics lead to different study power: because of this, one could be naturally tempted to try all possible metrics until one or more are found that give a statistically significant test result, i.e., p -value < α. This way of proceeding is one of the many forms of the so-called p -value hacking. To this end, in our opinion, the only way to protect ourselves from (the temptation of) p -hacking would be to publish a statistical plan before experiments are initiated, describing the outcomes of interest and the corresponding statistical analyses to be performed.

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 · 10.3389/fmicb.2021.796025

Cites

70 of 70 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?

  • Data interpretation must be cautious due to high inter-individual variability, lack of standardization in pipelines, and the absence of a universally defined healthy microbiome.

    “Data interpretation must be cautious due to high inter-individual variability, lack of standardization in pipelines, and the absence of a universally defined healthy microbiome [76,77].”

    From The Seven Methods for the Evaluation of Nutritional Status—ABCDEFG: Narrative Review (2026) · cites this paper as [76]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) cautions that the choice of alpha and beta diversity metrics can affect findings and that incomplete reporting makes results difficult to judge. The paper does not identify high inter-individual variability, lack of pipeline standardization, or the absence of a universally defined healthy microbiome as the reasons for caution stated in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 2

  1. Ellison A. M. (2010). Partitioning diversity. Ecology 91 1962– 1963. 20715615
  2. Hoffman J. (2015). Baic Biostatistics for Medical and Biomedical Practitioners. London: Academic Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kers, J. G., & Saccenti, E.
Affiliations
Wageningen University & Research (NL)
Corresponding author
Saccenti, Edoardo
Venue
Frontiers in Microbiology
Published
2022-03-03
Volume
12
Pages
796025-796025
ISSN
1664-302X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4214875183
Cited by
359
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 121 · 2025: 121 · 2024: 81 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 5
FWCI
19.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Microbiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
  • European Commission
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
Keywords
microbiome, sample size determination, statistical power, 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, Bray-Curtis distance, p-hacking, publication bias, statistical reporting, pre-analysis plan

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