The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Taxonomy annotation and guide tree errors in 16S rRNA databases
Open accessAbstract
Sequencing of the 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene is widely used to survey microbial communities. Specialized 16S rRNA databases have been developed to support this approach including Greengenes, RDP and SILVA. Most taxonomy annotations in these databases are predictions from sequence rather than authoritative assignments based on studies of type strains or isolates. In this work, I investigated the taxonomy annotations and guide trees provided by these databases. Using a blinded test, I estimated that the annotation error rate of the RDP database is ∼10%. The branching orders of the Greengenes and SILVA guide trees were found to disagree at comparable rates with each other and with taxonomy annotations according to the training set (authoritative reference) provided by RDP, indicating that the trees have comparable quality. Pervasive conflicts between tree branching order and type strain taxonomies strongly suggest that the guide trees are unreliable guides to phylogeny. I found 249,490 identical sequences with conflicting annotations in SILVA v128 and Greengenes v13.5 at ranks up to phylum (7,804 conflicts), indicating that the annotation error rate in these databases is ∼17%.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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
Greengenes, a Chimera-Checked 16S rRNA Gene Database and Workbench Compatible with ARB
DeSantis, T. Z., Hugenholtz, P., Larsen, N., Rojas, M., Brodie, E. L., Keller, K., Huber, T., Dalevi, D., Hu, P., & Andersen, G. L. (2006) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.03006-05 · Cited by 10,891
Woese, C. R. (1987) · Microbiological Reviews · doi:10.1128/mr.51.2.221-271.1987 · Cited by 5,042
The human microbiome: at the interface of health and disease
Cho, I., & Blaser, M. J. (2012) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg3182 · Cited by 3,449
A review of long-branch attraction
Bergsten, J. (2005) · Cladistics · doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2005.00059.x · Cited by 1,162
Resolving difficult phylogenetic questions: Why more sequences are not enough
Philippe, H., Brinkmann, H., Lavrov, D. V., Littlewood, D. T. J., Manuel, M., Wörheide, G., & Baurain, D. (2011) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000602 · Cited by 1,129
Cited by
RESCRIPt: Reproducible sequence taxonomy reference database management
(2021) · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009581 · Cited by 983
Curry, K. D., Wang, Q., Nute, M. G., Tyshaieva, A., Reeves, E., Soriano, S., Wu, Q., Graeber, E., Finzer, P., Mendling, W., et al. (2022) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-022-01520-4 · Cited by 380
phyloFlash: Rapid Small-Subunit rRNA Profiling and Targeted Assembly from Metagenomes
Gruber-Vodicka, H. R., Seah, B. K. B., & Pruesse, E. (2020) · mSystems · doi:10.1128/msystems.00920-20 · Cited by 365
Accuracy of taxonomy prediction for 16S rRNA and fungal ITS sequences
Edgar, R. C. (2018) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.4652 · Cited by 319
Self-citationNasko, D. J., Koren, S., Phillippy, A. M., & Treangen, T. J. (2018) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-018-1554-6 · Cited by 170
Metadata
- Authors
- Edgar, R.
- Venue
- PeerJ
- Publisher
- PeerJ
- Published
- 2018-06-12
- Volume
- 6
- Pages
- e5030
- ISSN
- 2167-8359 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2789346262
- Cited by
- 215
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 7.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Taxonomy annotation and guide tree errors in 16S rRNA databases. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7717/peerj.5030
- The paper
- Edgar, R. (2018). Taxonomy annotation and guide tree errors in 16S rRNA databases. PeerJ. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5030
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.