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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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
DOI 10.3402/mehd.v26.27663PMC PMC4450248
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

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.

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

Figures

Fig. 1 Histogram of pairwise Pearson correlation between operational taxonomic units in the global gut data set.
Fig. 1 Histogram of pairwise Pearson correlation between operational taxonomic units in the global gut data set.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Comparison of (a) false discovery rate and (b) statistical power to detect differentially abundant microbial taxa by t-test, ZIG, and analysis of composition of microbiomes, based on 100 simulated data sets consisting of 500 (top panels) and 1,000 (bottom panels) taxa. Value of π ranges from 0.05 to 0.25. Power for the t-test is unity over the entire range of π and is not shown on the plots.
Fig. 2 Comparison of (a) false discovery rate and (b) statistical power to detect differentially abundant microbial taxa by t-test, ZIG, and analysis of composition of microbiomes, based on 100 simulated data sets consisting of 500 (top panels) and 1,000 (bottom panels) taxa. Value of π ranges from 0.05 to 0.25. Power for the t-test is unity over the entire range of π and is not shown on the plots.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Unadjusted raw average OTU relative abundance and standard errors of Bacilli, Clostridia, and Gammaproteobacteria against the variables detected as having significant effects by application of ANCOM on the microbial dataset provided in LaRosa et al. (16). The mean OTU relative abundances for the two modes of birth at different gestational age categories are provided in the first row. The second row provides the mean OTU relative abundances at different ‘Day of life’ categories. The third row provides the mean OTU relative abundance for Bacilli against categories of breast milk variable and for Clostridia against categories of ‘Days on antibiotics’. Although, as in LaRosa et al. (16), ‘Day of life’ and ‘Days on antibiotics’ were analyzed as continuous variables, for simplicity of plotting in this figure they were discretized.
Fig. 3 Unadjusted raw average OTU relative abundance and standard errors of Bacilli, Clostridia, and Gammaproteobacteria against the variables detected as having significant effects by application of ANCOM on the microbial dataset provided in LaRosa et al. (16). The mean OTU relative abundances for the two modes of birth at different gestational age categories are provided in the first row. The second row provides the mean OTU relative abundances at different ‘Day of life’ categories. The third row provides the mean OTU relative abundance for Bacilli against categories of breast milk variable and for Clostridia against categories of ‘Days on antibiotics’. Although, as in LaRosa et al. (16), ‘Day of life’ and ‘Days on antibiotics’ were analyzed as continuous variables, for simplicity of plotting in this figure they were discretized.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

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.

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?

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

Show all 21 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 801–900 of 1,000

Related

See all

Metadata

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.
ORCID
Venue
Microbial Ecology in Health & Disease
Publisher
Co-Action Publishing
Published
2015-05-29
Volume
26
Issue
0
Pages
27663-27663
ISSN
  • 0891-060X (ISSN-L)
  • 1651-2235
DOI
10.3402/mehd.v26.27663
PMC
PMC4450248
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