Elementary methods provide more replicable results in microbial differential abundance analysis

dc.contributor.authorPelto, Juho
dc.contributor.authorAuranen, Kari
dc.contributor.authorKujala, Janne V.
dc.contributor.authorLahti, Leo
dc.contributor.organizationfi=data-analytiikka|en=Data-analytiikka|
dc.contributor.organizationfi=kliininen laitos|en=Department of Clinical Medicine|
dc.contributor.organizationfi=tilastotiede|en=Statistics|
dc.contributor.organization-code1.2.246.10.2458963.20.68940835793
dc.contributor.organization-code1.2.246.10.2458963.20.42133013740
dc.contributor.organization-code1.2.246.10.2458963.20.61334543354
dc.converis.publication-id491925599
dc.converis.urlhttps://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/Publication/491925599
dc.date.accessioned2026-04-24T16:01:24Z
dc.description.abstract<p>Differential abundance analysis (DAA) is a key component of microbiome studies. Although dozens of methods exist, there is currently no consensus on the preferred methods. While the correctness of results in DAA is an ambiguous concept and cannot be fully evaluated without setting the ground truth and employing simulated data, we argue that a well-performing method should be effective in producing highly reproducible results. We compared the performance of 14 DAA methods by employing datasets from 53 taxonomic profiling studies based on 16S rRNA gene or shotgun metagenomic sequencing. For each method, we examined how the results replicated between random partitions of each dataset and between datasets from separate studies. While certain methods showed good consistency, some widely used methods were observed to produce a substantial number of conf licting findings. Overall, when considering consistency together with sensitivity, the best performance was attained by analyzing relative abundances with a nonparametric method (Wilcoxon test or ordinal regression model) or linear regression/t-test. Moreover, a comparable performance was obtained by analyzing presence/absence of taxa with logistic regression.<br></p>
dc.identifier.eissn1477-4054
dc.identifier.jour-issn1467-5463
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.utupub.fi/handle/11111/58608
dc.identifier.urlhttps://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbaf130
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi-fe2026022315421
dc.language.isoen
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorPelto, Juho
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorAuranen, Kari
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorKujala, Janne
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorLahti, Leo
dc.okm.discipline1182 Biochemistry, cell and molecular biologyen_GB
dc.okm.discipline1182 Biokemia, solu- ja molekyylibiologiafi_FI
dc.okm.discipline113 Computer and information sciencesen_GB
dc.okm.discipline113 Tietojenkäsittely ja informaatiotieteetfi_FI
dc.okm.discipline3111 Biomedicineen_GB
dc.okm.discipline3111 Biolääketieteetfi_FI
dc.okm.discipline111 Mathematicsen_GB
dc.okm.discipline111 Matematiikkafi_FI
dc.okm.internationalcopublicationnot an international co-publication
dc.okm.internationalityInternational publication
dc.okm.typeA2 Scientific Article
dc.publisherOxford University Press
dc.publisher.countryUnited Kingdomen_GB
dc.publisher.countryBritanniafi_FI
dc.publisher.country-codeGB
dc.relation.articlenumberbbaf130
dc.relation.doi10.1093/bib/bbaf130
dc.relation.ispartofjournalBriefings in Bioinformatics
dc.relation.issue2
dc.relation.volume26
dc.titleElementary methods provide more replicable results in microbial differential abundance analysis
dc.year.issued2025

Tiedostot

Näytetään 1 - 1 / 1
Ladataan...
Name:
bbaf130.pdf
Size:
1.92 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format