610 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30497919)
1. Contamination in Low Microbial Biomass Microbiome Studies: Issues and Recommendations.
Eisenhofer R; Minich JJ; Marotz C; Cooper A; Knight R; Weyrich LS
Trends Microbiol; 2019 Feb; 27(2):105-117. PubMed ID: 30497919
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Identification and removal of contaminating microbial DNA from PCR reagents: impact on low-biomass microbiome analyses.
Stinson LF; Keelan JA; Payne MS
Lett Appl Microbiol; 2019 Jan; 68(1):2-8. PubMed ID: 30383890
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Impact of DNA extraction, sample dilution, and reagent contamination on 16S rRNA gene sequencing of human feces.
Velásquez-Mejía EP; de la Cuesta-Zuluaga J; Escobar JS
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol; 2018 Jan; 102(1):403-411. PubMed ID: 29079861
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Critical Relevance of Stochastic Effects on Low-Bacterial-Biomass 16S rRNA Gene Analysis.
Erb-Downward JR; Falkowski NR; D'Souza JC; McCloskey LM; McDonald RA; Brown CA; Shedden K; Dickson RP; Freeman CM; Stringer KA; Foxman B; Huffnagle GB; Curtis JL; Adar SD
mBio; 2020 Jun; 11(3):. PubMed ID: 32518181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Improved yield and accuracy for DNA extraction in microbiome studies with variation in microbial biomass.
Davis A; Kohler C; Alsallaq R; Hayden R; Maron G; Margolis E
Biotechniques; 2019 Jun; 66(6):285-289. PubMed ID: 31124702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Optimisation of methods for bacterial skin microbiome investigation: primer selection and comparison of the 454 versus MiSeq platform.
Castelino M; Eyre S; Moat J; Fox G; Martin P; Ho P; Upton M; Barton A
BMC Microbiol; 2017 Jan; 17(1):23. PubMed ID: 28109256
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Experimental metagenomics and ribosomal profiling of the human skin microbiome.
Ferretti P; Farina S; Cristofolini M; Girolomoni G; Tett A; Segata N
Exp Dermatol; 2017 Mar; 26(3):211-219. PubMed ID: 27623553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Tracking down the sources of experimental contamination in microbiome studies.
Weiss S; Amir A; Hyde ER; Metcalf JL; Song SJ; Knight R
Genome Biol; 2014 Dec; 15(12):564. PubMed ID: 25608874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. De novo identification of microbial contaminants in low microbial biomass microbiomes with Squeegee.
Liu Y; Elworth RAL; Jochum MD; Aagaard KM; Treangen TJ
Nat Commun; 2022 Nov; 13(1):6799. PubMed ID: 36357382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Optimizing methods and dodging pitfalls in microbiome research.
Kim D; Hofstaedter CE; Zhao C; Mattei L; Tanes C; Clarke E; Lauder A; Sherrill-Mix S; Chehoud C; Kelsen J; Conrad M; Collman RG; Baldassano R; Bushman FD; Bittinger K
Microbiome; 2017 May; 5(1):52. PubMed ID: 28476139
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Microbiome applications for pathology: challenges of low microbial biomass samples during diagnostic testing.
Selway CA; Eisenhofer R; Weyrich LS
J Pathol Clin Res; 2020 Apr; 6(2):97-106. PubMed ID: 31944633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Characterizing the Deep Terrestrial Subsurface Microbiome.
Daly RA; Wrighton KC; Wilkins MJ
Methods Mol Biol; 2018; 1849():1-15. PubMed ID: 30298244
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Microbiota data from low biomass milk samples is markedly affected by laboratory and reagent contamination.
Dahlberg J; Sun L; Persson Waller K; Östensson K; McGuire M; Agenäs S; Dicksved J
PLoS One; 2019; 14(6):e0218257. PubMed ID: 31194836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Using strain-resolved analysis to identify contamination in metagenomics data.
Lou YC; Hoff J; Olm MR; West-Roberts J; Diamond S; Firek BA; Morowitz MJ; Banfield JF
Microbiome; 2023 Mar; 11(1):36. PubMed ID: 36864482
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Reagent and laboratory contamination can critically impact sequence-based microbiome analyses.
Salter SJ; Cox MJ; Turek EM; Calus ST; Cookson WO; Moffatt MF; Turner P; Parkhill J; Loman NJ; Walker AW
BMC Biol; 2014 Nov; 12():87. PubMed ID: 25387460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Sterile paper points as a bacterial DNA-contamination source in microbiome profiles of clinical samples.
van der Horst J; Buijs MJ; Laine ML; Wismeijer D; Loos BG; Crielaard W; Zaura E
J Dent; 2013 Dec; 41(12):1297-301. PubMed ID: 24135296
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Sampling, Extraction, and High-Throughput Sequencing Methods for Environmental Microbial and Viral Communities.
Torres PJ; Kelley ST
Methods Mol Biol; 2018; 1712():163-173. PubMed ID: 29224074
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Purifying the impure: sequencing metagenomes and metatranscriptomes from complex animal-associated samples.
Lim YW; Haynes M; Furlan M; Robertson CE; Harris JK; Rohwer F
J Vis Exp; 2014 Dec; (94):. PubMed ID: 25549184
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The truth about metagenomics: quantifying and counteracting bias in 16S rRNA studies.
Brooks JP; Edwards DJ; Harwich MD; Rivera MC; Fettweis JM; Serrano MG; Reris RA; Sheth NU; Huang B; Girerd P; ; Strauss JF; Jefferson KK; Buck GA
BMC Microbiol; 2015 Mar; 15():66. PubMed ID: 25880246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Practical considerations for sampling and data analysis in contemporary metagenomics-based environmental studies.
Staley C; Sadowsky MJ
J Microbiol Methods; 2018 Nov; 154():14-18. PubMed ID: 30287354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
