Cited by 1,942Gut microbiota and healthMicrobial Community Ecology and PhysiologyGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

Analysis of composition of microbiomes: a novel method for studying microbial composition

Open access
Mandal, Siddhartha, Van Treuren, Will, White, Richard A., Eggesbø, Merete, Knight, Rob, Peddada, Shyamal D.·2015·Microbial Ecology in Health & Disease

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Understanding the factors regulating our microbiota is important but requires appropriate statistical methodology. When comparing two or more populations most existing approaches either discount the underlying compositional structure in the microbiome data or use probability models such as the multinomial and Dirichlet-multinomial distributions, which may impose a correlation structure not suitable for microbiome data. OBJECTIVE: To develop a methodology that accounts for compositional constraints to reduce false discoveries in detecting differentially abundant taxa at an ecosystem level, while maintaining high statistical power. METHODS: We introduced a novel statistical framework called analysis of composition of microbiomes (ANCOM). ANCOM accounts for the underlying structure in the data and can be used for comparing the composition of microbiomes in two or more populations. ANCOM makes no distributional assumptions and can be implemented in a linear model framework to adjust for covariates as well as model longitudinal data. ANCOM also scales well to compare samples involving thousands of taxa. RESULTS: We compared the performance of ANCOM to the standard t-test and a recently published methodology called Zero Inflated Gaussian (ZIG) methodology (1) for drawing inferences on the mean taxa abundance in two or more populations. ANCOM controlled the false discovery rate (FDR) at the desired nominal level while also improving power, whereas the t-test and ZIG had inflated FDRs, in some instances as high as 68% for the t-test and 60% for ZIG. We illustrate the performance of ANCOM using two publicly available microbial datasets in the human gut, demonstrating its general applicability to testing hypotheses about compositional differences in microbial communities. CONCLUSION: Accounting for compositionality using log-ratio analysis results in significantly improved inference in microbiota survey data.

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 · 10.3402/mehd.v26.27663

Cites

21 of 21 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?

  • ANCOM is a sensitive test for taxa that vary significantly and in an unusual way compared to the other taxa.

    “As such, this is a sensitive test for taxa that vary significantly and in an unusual way compared to the other taxa.”
  • ANCOM accounts for the simplex nature of compositional data and therefore does not suffer from spurious negative correlations imposed by the sum-to-one constraint on relative abundances.

    “The ANCOM method accounts for the simplex nature of compositional data, and so does not suffer from spurious negative correlations imposed by the fact that (relative) abundances across all bacteria must sum to one within a given bacterial community.”

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
Mandal, S., Van Treuren, W., White, R. A., Eggesbø, M., Knight, R., & Peddada, S. D.
Affiliations
  • Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NO)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (US)
Corresponding author
Peddada, Shyamal D.
Venue
Microbial Ecology in Health & Disease
Published
2015-05-29
Volume
26
Issue
0
Pages
27663-27663
ISSN
  • 0891-060X (ISSN-L)
  • 1651-2235
OpenAlex
W1523266228
Cited by
1,942
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 61 · 2025: 169 · 2024: 230 · 2023: 264 · 2022: 325 · 2021: 326 · 2020: 248 · 2019: 153 · 2018: 96 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 2
FWCI
23.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway)) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
ANCOM, microbiota composition, compositional data, false discovery rate, differentially abundant taxa, log-ratio analysis, human gut microbiome, statistical power, covariate adjustment, longitudinal microbiome data

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