↓ Skip to main content

Reducing the Effects of PCR Amplification and Sequencing Artifacts on 16S rRNA-Based Studies

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
13 X users
patent
24 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1806 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1515 Mendeley
citeulike
16 CiteULike
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
Reducing the Effects of PCR Amplification and Sequencing Artifacts on 16S rRNA-Based Studies
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0027310
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick D. Schloss, Dirk Gevers, Sarah L. Westcott

Abstract

The advent of next generation sequencing has coincided with a growth in interest in using these approaches to better understand the role of the structure and function of the microbial communities in human, animal, and environmental health. Yet, use of next generation sequencing to perform 16S rRNA gene sequence surveys has resulted in considerable controversy surrounding the effects of sequencing errors on downstream analyses. We analyzed 2.7×10(6) reads distributed among 90 identical mock community samples, which were collections of genomic DNA from 21 different species with known 16S rRNA gene sequences; we observed an average error rate of 0.0060. To improve this error rate, we evaluated numerous methods of identifying bad sequence reads, identifying regions within reads of poor quality, and correcting base calls and were able to reduce the overall error rate to 0.0002. Implementation of the PyroNoise algorithm provided the best combination of error rate, sequence length, and number of sequences. Perhaps more problematic than sequencing errors was the presence of chimeras generated during PCR. Because we knew the true sequences within the mock community and the chimeras they could form, we identified 8% of the raw sequence reads as chimeric. After quality filtering the raw sequences and using the Uchime chimera detection program, the overall chimera rate decreased to 1%. The chimeras that could not be detected were largely responsible for the identification of spurious operational taxonomic units (OTUs) and genus-level phylotypes. The number of spurious OTUs and phylotypes increased with sequencing effort indicating that comparison of communities should be made using an equal number of sequences. Finally, we applied our improved quality-filtering pipeline to several benchmarking studies and observed that even with our stringent data curation pipeline, biases in the data generation pipeline and batch effects were observed that could potentially confound the interpretation of microbial community data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 1,515 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 43 3%
United Kingdom 10 <1%
Canada 8 <1%
France 7 <1%
Germany 7 <1%
Denmark 4 <1%
Spain 4 <1%
Brazil 4 <1%
Switzerland 3 <1%
Other 29 2%
Unknown 1396 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 409 27%
Researcher 345 23%
Student > Master 197 13%
Student > Bachelor 109 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 84 6%
Other 199 13%
Unknown 172 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 763 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 164 11%
Environmental Science 122 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 61 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 42 3%
Other 148 10%
Unknown 215 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 05 March 2024.
All research outputs
#883,250
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#11,539
of 224,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,877
of 252,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#107
of 3,035 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 252,593 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,035 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.