Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 355

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Denoising the Denoisers: an independent evaluation of microbiome sequence error-correction approaches

Open access
Nearing, Jacob T., Douglas, Gavin M., Comeau, André M., Langille, Morgan G.I.·2018·PeerJ

Abstract

High-depth sequencing of universal marker genes such as the 16S rRNA gene is a common strategy to profile microbial communities. Traditionally, sequence reads are clustered into operational taxonomic units (OTUs) at a defined identity threshold to avoid sequencing errors generating spurious taxonomic units. However, there have been numerous bioinformatic packages recently released that attempt to correct sequencing errors to determine real biological sequences at single nucleotide resolution by generating amplicon sequence variants (ASVs). As more researchers begin to use high resolution ASVs, there is a need for an in-depth and unbiased comparison of these novel “denoising” pipelines. In this study, we conduct a thorough comparison of three of the most widely-used denoising packages (DADA2, UNOISE3, and Deblur) as well as an open-reference 97% OTU clustering pipeline on mock, soil, and host-associated communities. We found from the mock community analyses that although they produced similar microbial compositions based on relative abundance, the approaches identified vastly different numbers of ASVs that significantly impact alpha diversity metrics. Our analysis on real datasets using recommended settings for each denoising pipeline also showed that the three packages were consistent in their per-sample compositions, resulting in only minor differences based on weighted UniFrac and Bray–Curtis dissimilarity. DADA2 tended to find more ASVs than the other two denoising pipelines when analyzing both the real soil data and two other host-associated datasets, suggesting that it could be better at finding rare organisms, but at the expense of possible false positives. The open-reference OTU clustering approach identified considerably more OTUs in comparison to the number of ASVs from the denoising pipelines in all datasets tested. The three denoising approaches were significantly different in their run times, with UNOISE3 running greater than 1,200 and 15 times faster than DADA2 and Deblur, respectively. Our findings indicate that, although all pipelines result in similar general community structure, the number of ASVs/OTUs and resulting alpha-diversity metrics varies considerably and should be considered when attempting to identify rare organisms from possible background noise.

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 · 10.7717/peerj.5364

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 32 references

Cited by

See all 355

Metadata

Authors
Nearing, J. T., Douglas, G. M., Comeau, A. M., & Langille, M. G. I.
Venue
PeerJ
Publisher
PeerJ
Published
2018-08-08
Volume
6
Pages
e5364
ISSN
2167-8359 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2787925891
Cited by
355
References
32
FWCI
12.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold
Funders
  • Terry Fox Research Institute (TFRI)
  • NSERC Alexander Graham Bell Canada Graduate Scholarship
  • NSERC Discovery Grant

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: Denoising the Denoisers: an independent evaluation of microbiome sequence error-correction approaches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7717/peerj.5364
The paper
Nearing, J. T., Douglas, G. M., Comeau, A. M., & Langille, M. G. I. (2018). Denoising the Denoisers: an independent evaluation of microbiome sequence error-correction approaches. PeerJ. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5364

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.