Evaluating Bias of Illumina-Based Bacterial 16S rRNA Gene Profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Massively parallel sequencing of 16S rRNA genes enables the comparison of terrestrial, aquatic, and host-associated microbial communities with sufficient sequencing depth for robust assessments of both alpha and beta diversity. Establishing standardized protocols for the analysis of microbial communities is dependent on increasing the reproducibility of PCR-based molecular surveys by minimizing sources of methodological bias. In this study, we tested the effects of template concentration, pooling of PCR amplicons, and sample preparation/interlane sequencing on the reproducibility associated with paired-end Illumina sequencing of bacterial 16S rRNA genes. Using DNA extracts from soil and fecal samples as templates, we sequenced pooled amplicons and individual reactions for both high (5- to 10-ng) and low (0.1-ng) template concentrations. In addition, all experimental manipulations were repeated on two separate days and sequenced on two different Illumina MiSeq lanes. Although within-sample sequence profiles were highly consistent, template concentration had a significant impact on sample profile variability for most samples. Pooling of multiple PCR amplicons, sample preparation, and interlane variability did not influence sample sequence data significantly. This systematic analysis underlines the importance of optimizing template concentration in order to minimize variability in microbial-community surveys and indicates that the practice of pooling multiple PCR amplicons prior to sequencing contributes proportionally less to reducing bias in 16S rRNA gene surveys with next-generation sequencing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".