bioRxivMicrobiology
Rarefaction is currently the best approach to control for uneven sequencing effort in amplicon sequence analyses
Abstract
Considering it is common to find as much as 100-fold variation in the number of 16S rRNA gene sequences found across samples in a study, researchers need to control for the effect of uneven sequencing effort. How to do this has become a contentious question. Some have argued that rarefying or rarefaction is "inadmissible" because it omits valid data. A number of alternative approaches have been developed to normalize and rescale the data that purport to be invariant to the number of observations. I generated community distributions based on 12 published datasets where I was able to assess the ability of multiple methods to control for uneven sequencing effort. Rarefaction was the only method that could control for variation in uneven sequencing effort when measuring commonly used alpha and beta diversity metrics. Next, I compared the false detection rate and power to detect true differences between simulated communities with a known effect size using various alpha and beta diversity metrics. Although all methods of controlling for uneven sequencing effort had an acceptable false detection rate when samples were randomly assigned to two treatment groups, rarefaction was consistently able to control for differences in sequencing effort when sequencing depth was confounded with treatment group. Finally, the statistical power to detect differences in alpha and beta diversity metrics was consistently the highest when using rarefaction. These simulations underscore the importance of using rarefaction to normalize the number of sequences across samples in amplicon sequencing analyses. ImportanceSequencing 16S rRNA gene fragments has become a fundamental tool for understanding the diversity of microbial communities and the factors that affect their diversity. Due to technical challenges, it is common to observe wide variation in the number of sequences that are collected from different samples within the same study. However, the diversity metrics used by microbial ecologists are sensitive to differences in sequencing effort. Therefore, tools are needed to control for the uneven levels of sequencing. This simulation-based analysis shows that despite a longstanding controversy, rarefaction is the most robust approach to control for uneven sequencing effort. The controversy started because of confusion over the definition of rarefaction and violation of assumptions that are made by methods that have been borrowed from other fields. Microbial ecologists should use rarefaction.
- assay: metagenomics
- research focus: benchmarking
- research focus: differential expression
- research focus: variant calling
- approach: statistical model
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Waste not, want not: Revisiting the analysis that called into question the practice of rarefaction
P. D. Schloss·bioRxiv·Jun 23, 2023
- Rarefaction is better than robust Aitchison PCA and other compositional data analysis methods at controlling for uneven sequencing effort
Patrick D. Schloss·mSystemsPeer-reviewed·Sep 30, 2026
- To rarefy or not to rarefy: Enhancing diversity analysis of microbial communities through next-generation sequencing and rarefying repeatedly
Ellen S. Cameron, Philip J. Schmidt, … Kirsten M. Müller·Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewed·Nov 16, 2021
- Removal of rare amplicon sequence variants from 16S rRNA gene sequence surveys biases the interpretation of community structure data
P. D. Schloss·bioRxiv·Dec 11, 2020
- Ensuring that fundamentals of quantitative microbiology are reflected in microbial diversity analyses based on next-generation sequencing
Philip J. Schmidt, Ellen S. Cameron, … Monica B. Emelko·Frontiers in MicrobiologyPeer-reviewed·Mar 1, 2022
- UNBIAS: An attempt to correct abundance bias in 16S sequencing, with limited success
R. C. Edgar·bioRxiv·Apr 4, 2017