Multi-factorial examination of amplicon sequencing workflows from sample preparation to bioinformatic analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The development of sequencing technologies to evaluate bacterial microbiota composition has allowed new insights into the importance of microbial ecology. However, the variety of methodologies used among amplicon sequencing workflows leads to uncertainty about best practices as well as reproducibility and replicability among microbiome studies. Using a bacterial mock community composed of 37 soil isolates, we performed a comprehensive methodological evaluation of 540 workflows, each with a different combination of methodological factors spanning sample preparation to bioinformatic analysis to define sources of artifacts that affect sensitivity, specificity, and biases in the resulting compositional profiles. Of the 540 workflows examined, those using the V4-V4 primer set enabled the highest level of concordance between the original mock community and resulting microbiome sequence composition. Use of a high-fidelity polymerase, or a lower-fidelity polymerase with increased PCR elongation time limited chimera formation. Bioinformatic pipelines presented a trade-off between the fraction of distinct community members identified (sensitivity) and fraction of correct sequences (specificity). DADA2 and QIIME2 assembled V4-V4 reads amplified by Taq polymerase resulted in the highest specificity (100%), but only identified 52% of mock community members. Using mothur to assemble and denoise V4-V4 reads resulted in detection of 75% of mock community members among the resulting sequences, albeit with marginally lower specificity (99.5%). Optimization of microbiome workflows is critical for accuracy and to support reproducibility and replicability among microbiome studies. These aspects will help reveal the guiding principles of microbial ecology and impact the translation of microbiome research to human and environmental health.
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 | 0.017 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".