↓ Skip to main content

Deriving accurate microbiota profiles from human samples with low bacterial content through post-sequencing processing of Illumina MiSeq data

Overview of attention for article published in Microbiome, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
25 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
167 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
286 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Deriving accurate microbiota profiles from human samples with low bacterial content through post-sequencing processing of Illumina MiSeq data
Published in
Microbiome, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40168-015-0083-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jake Jervis-Bardy, Lex E X Leong, Shashikanth Marri, Renee J Smith, Jocelyn M Choo, Heidi C Smith-Vaughan, Elizabeth Nosworthy, Peter S Morris, Stephen O’Leary, Geraint B Rogers, Robyn L Marsh

Abstract

The rapid expansion of 16S rRNA gene sequencing in challenging clinical contexts has resulted in a growing body of literature of variable quality. To a large extent, this is due to a failure to address spurious signal that is characteristic of samples with low levels of bacteria and high levels of non-bacterial DNA. We have developed a workflow based on the paired-end read Illumina MiSeq-based approach, which enables significant improvement in data quality, post-sequencing. We demonstrate the efficacy of this methodology through its application to paediatric upper-respiratory samples from several anatomical sites. A workflow for processing sequence data was developed based on commonly available tools. Data generated from different sample types showed a marked variation in levels of non-bacterial signal and 'contaminant' bacterial reads. Significant differences in the ability of reference databases to accurately assign identity to operational taxonomic units (OTU) were observed. Three OTU-picking strategies were trialled as follows: de novo, open-reference and closed-reference, with open-reference performing substantially better. Relative abundance of OTUs identified as potential reagent contamination showed a strong inverse correlation with amplicon concentration allowing their objective removal. The removal of the spurious signal showed the greatest improvement in sample types typically containing low levels of bacteria and high levels of human DNA. A substantial impact of pre-filtering data and spurious signal removal was demonstrated by principal coordinate and co-occurrence analysis. For example, analysis of taxon co-occurrence in adenoid swab and middle ear fluid samples indicated that failure to remove the spurious signal resulted in the inclusion of six out of eleven bacterial genera that accounted for 80% of similarity between the sample types. The application of the presented workflow to a set of challenging clinical samples demonstrates its utility in removing the spurious signal from the dataset, allowing clinical insight to be derived from what would otherwise be highly misleading output. While other approaches could potentially achieve similar improvements, the methodology employed here represents an accessible means to exclude the signal from contamination and other artefacts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 286 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
Canada 3 1%
Argentina 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 271 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 71 25%
Researcher 67 23%
Student > Master 39 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 6%
Student > Bachelor 17 6%
Other 37 13%
Unknown 38 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 97 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 45 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 34 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 8%
Engineering 7 2%
Other 26 9%
Unknown 54 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,652,175
of 24,885,505 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
#613
of 1,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,620
of 269,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,885,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,705 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,857 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.