Microbiome differential abundance methods produce disturbingly different results across 38 datasets
Jacob T. Nearing, Gavin M. Douglas, Molly G. Hayes, Jocelyn MacDonald, Dhwani Desai, Nicole E. McCormick, Casey M. A. Jones, Robyn Wright, Akhilesh S. Dhanani, A. Comeau, Morgan G. I. Langille
In 38 two-group 16S rRNA datasets, 14 differential abundance tools disagreed sharply; ALDEx2 and ANCOM-II were conservative and consistent, while edgeR and LEfSe inflated false positives.
Nature Communications · Jan 17, 2022Peer-reviewedBioinformatics✦ In-depth digest