Towards standards for human fecal sample processing in metagenomic studies

By P. Costea, Georg Zeller, Shinichi Sunagawa, É. Pelletier, A. Alberti, F. Levenez, Melanie Tramontano, Marja Driessen, R. Hercog, Ferris Jung and 48 more. Nature Biotechnology, 2017

756 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

From Big Data to Precision Medicine (2019, neutral): “In this regard, there have been recent advancements in attempts to standardize the way these samples are collected for generating “omics” (47–49).”
The Human Gut Microbiome: From Association to Modulation. (2018, neutral): “…that (iii) intrinsic compositional 669 constellations or stable states are resilient, that (iv) true effects can only be detected at higher 670 taxonomic resolution (Costea et al., 2017a), or that (v) neutral or stochastic processes (drift) 671 have a stronger impact than previously appreciated.”
Reporting guidelines for Human Microbiome Research: the STORMS checklist (2021, methodology): “These are focused on the technical aspects of data generation, however, as are projects such as the MBQC (Microbiome Quality Control) project 10 and IHMS (International Human Microbiome Standards) 11,12 .”
Quantitative PCR provides a simple and accessible method for quantitative microbiota profiling (2020, methodology): “Bacterial DNA was extracted from fecal samples using a modified version of repeated bead beating [15] that efficiently extracts bacterial DNA from both Gram-positive and -negative cocci [16].”
A practical guide to amplicon and metagenomic analysis of microbiome data (2020, background): “The metadata can be used for downstream analyses and help researchers to determine whether these operational differences contribute to false-positive results (Costea et al., 2017).”