The Impact of DNA Polymerase and Number of Rounds of Amplification in PCR on 16S rRNA Gene Sequence Data

A steep decline in sequencing costs drove an explosion in studies characterizing microbial communities from diverse environments. Although a significant amount of effort has gone into understanding the error profiles of DNA sequencers, little has been done to understand the downstream effects of the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inmSphere Vol. 4; no. 3
Main Authors Sze, Marc A., Schloss, Patrick D.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States American Society for Microbiology 22.05.2019
Subjects
16S rRNA gene
Abundance
Bacteria - genetics
Bias
Data analysis
Deoxyribonucleic acid
DNA
DNA polymerase
DNA, Bacterial - genetics
DNA-directed DNA polymerase
DNA-Directed DNA Polymerase - genetics
DNA-Directed DNA Polymerase - standards
Ecological and Evolutionary Science
environmental microbiology
Feces - microbiology
Fidelity
Humans
Investigations
microbial ecology
microbiome
Microbiota
Nucleotide sequence
PCR
Pipelines
Polymerase chain reaction
Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods
Polymerase Chain Reaction - standards
Researchers
RNA, Ribosomal, 16S - genetics
rRNA 16S
Sequence Analysis, DNA - standards
Software
Taxonomy
environmental microbiology
polymerase
bias
sequence analysis
microbial ecology
microbiome
PCR
16S rRNA gene
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Abstract A steep decline in sequencing costs drove an explosion in studies characterizing microbial communities from diverse environments. Although a significant amount of effort has gone into understanding the error profiles of DNA sequencers, little has been done to understand the downstream effects of the PCR amplification protocol. We quantified the effects of the choice of polymerase and number of PCR cycles on the quality of downstream data. We found that these choices can have a profound impact on the way that a microbial community is represented in the sequence data. The effects are relatively small compared to the variation in human stool samples; however, care should be taken to use polymerases with the highest possible fidelity and to minimize the number of rounds of PCR. These results also underscore that it is not possible to directly compare sequence data generated under different PCR conditions. PCR amplification of 16S rRNA genes is a critical yet underappreciated step in the generation of sequence data to describe the taxonomic composition of microbial communities. Numerous factors in the design of PCR can impact the sequencing error rate, the abundance of chimeric sequences, and the degree to which the fragments in the product represent their abundance in the original sample (i.e., bias). We compared the performance of high fidelity polymerases and various numbers of rounds of amplification when amplifying a mock community and human stool samples. Although it was impossible to derive specific recommendations, we did observe general trends. Namely, using a polymerase with the highest possible fidelity and minimizing the number of rounds of PCR reduced the sequencing error rate, fraction of chimeric sequences, and bias. Evidence of bias at the sequence level was subtle and could not be ascribed to the fragments’ fraction of bases that were guanines or cytosines. When analyzing mock community data, the amount that the community deviated from the expected composition increased with the number of rounds of PCR. This bias was inconsistent for human stool samples. Overall, the results underscore the difficulty of comparing sequence data that are generated by different PCR protocols. However, the results indicate that the variation in human stool samples is generally larger than that introduced by the choice of polymerase or number of rounds of PCR. IMPORTANCE A steep decline in sequencing costs drove an explosion in studies characterizing microbial communities from diverse environments. Although a significant amount of effort has gone into understanding the error profiles of DNA sequencers, little has been done to understand the downstream effects of the PCR amplification protocol. We quantified the effects of the choice of polymerase and number of PCR cycles on the quality of downstream data. We found that these choices can have a profound impact on the way that a microbial community is represented in the sequence data. The effects are relatively small compared to the variation in human stool samples; however, care should be taken to use polymerases with the highest possible fidelity and to minimize the number of rounds of PCR. These results also underscore that it is not possible to directly compare sequence data generated under different PCR conditions.
AbstractList PCR amplification of 16S rRNA genes is a critical yet underappreciated step in the generation of sequence data to describe the taxonomic composition of microbial communities. Numerous factors in the design of PCR can impact the sequencing error rate, the abundance of chimeric sequences, and the degree to which the fragments in the product represent their abundance in the original sample (i.e., bias). We compared the performance of high fidelity polymerases and various numbers of rounds of amplification when amplifying a mock community and human stool samples. Although it was impossible to derive specific recommendations, we did observe general trends. Namely, using a polymerase with the highest possible fidelity and minimizing the number of rounds of PCR reduced the sequencing error rate, fraction of chimeric sequences, and bias. Evidence of bias at the sequence level was subtle and could not be ascribed to the fragments' fraction of bases that were guanines or cytosines. When analyzing mock community data, the amount that the community deviated from the expected composition increased with the number of rounds of PCR. This bias was inconsistent for human stool samples. Overall, the results underscore the difficulty of comparing sequence data that are generated by different PCR protocols. However, the results indicate that the variation in human stool samples is generally larger than that introduced by the choice of polymerase or number of rounds of PCR.IMPORTANCE A steep decline in sequencing costs drove an explosion in studies characterizing microbial communities from diverse environments. Although a significant amount of effort has gone into understanding the error profiles of DNA sequencers, little has been done to understand the downstream effects of the PCR amplification protocol. We quantified the effects of the choice of polymerase and number of PCR cycles on the quality of downstream data. We found that these choices can have a profound impact on the way that a microbial community is represented in the sequence data. The effects are relatively small compared to the variation in human stool samples; however, care should be taken to use polymerases with the highest possible fidelity and to minimize the number of rounds of PCR. These results also underscore that it is not possible to directly compare sequence data generated under different PCR conditions.PCR amplification of 16S rRNA genes is a critical yet underappreciated step in the generation of sequence data to describe the taxonomic composition of microbial communities. Numerous factors in the design of PCR can impact the sequencing error rate, the abundance of chimeric sequences, and the degree to which the fragments in the product represent their abundance in the original sample (i.e., bias). We compared the performance of high fidelity polymerases and various numbers of rounds of amplification when amplifying a mock community and human stool samples. Although it was impossible to derive specific recommendations, we did observe general trends. Namely, using a polymerase with the highest possible fidelity and minimizing the number of rounds of PCR reduced the sequencing error rate, fraction of chimeric sequences, and bias. Evidence of bias at the sequence level was subtle and could not be ascribed to the fragments' fraction of bases that were guanines or cytosines. When analyzing mock community data, the amount that the community deviated from the expected composition increased with the number of rounds of PCR. This bias was inconsistent for human stool samples. Overall, the results underscore the difficulty of comparing sequence data that are generated by different PCR protocols. However, the results indicate that the variation in human stool samples is generally larger than that introduced by the choice of polymerase or number of rounds of PCR.IMPORTANCE A steep decline in sequencing costs drove an explosion in studies characterizing microbial communities from diverse environments. Although a significant amount of effort has gone into understanding the error profiles of DNA sequencers, little has been done to understand the downstream effects of the PCR amplification protocol. We quantified the effects of the choice of polymerase and number of PCR cycles on the quality of downstream data. We found that these choices can have a profound impact on the way that a microbial community is represented in the sequence data. The effects are relatively small compared to the variation in human stool samples; however, care should be taken to use polymerases with the highest possible fidelity and to minimize the number of rounds of PCR. These results also underscore that it is not possible to directly compare sequence data generated under different PCR conditions.
PCR amplification of 16S rRNA genes is a critical yet underappreciated step in the generation of sequence data to describe the taxonomic composition of microbial communities. Numerous factors in the design of PCR can impact the sequencing error rate, the abundance of chimeric sequences, and the degree to which the fragments in the product represent their abundance in the original sample (i.e., bias). We compared the performance of high fidelity polymerases and various numbers of rounds of amplification when amplifying a mock community and human stool samples. Although it was impossible to derive specific recommendations, we did observe general trends. Namely, using a polymerase with the highest possible fidelity and minimizing the number of rounds of PCR reduced the sequencing error rate, fraction of chimeric sequences, and bias. Evidence of bias at the sequence level was subtle and could not be ascribed to the fragments' fraction of bases that were guanines or cytosines. When analyzing mock community data, the amount that the community deviated from the expected composition increased with the number of rounds of PCR. This bias was inconsistent for human stool samples. Overall, the results underscore the difficulty of comparing sequence data that are generated by different PCR protocols. However, the results indicate that the variation in human stool samples is generally larger than that introduced by the choice of polymerase or number of rounds of PCR. A steep decline in sequencing costs drove an explosion in studies characterizing microbial communities from diverse environments. Although a significant amount of effort has gone into understanding the error profiles of DNA sequencers, little has been done to understand the downstream effects of the PCR amplification protocol. We quantified the effects of the choice of polymerase and number of PCR cycles on the quality of downstream data. We found that these choices can have a profound impact on the way that a microbial community is represented in the sequence data. The effects are relatively small compared to the variation in human stool samples; however, care should be taken to use polymerases with the highest possible fidelity and to minimize the number of rounds of PCR. These results also underscore that it is not possible to directly compare sequence data generated under different PCR conditions.
A steep decline in sequencing costs drove an explosion in studies characterizing microbial communities from diverse environments. Although a significant amount of effort has gone into understanding the error profiles of DNA sequencers, little has been done to understand the downstream effects of the PCR amplification protocol. We quantified the effects of the choice of polymerase and number of PCR cycles on the quality of downstream data. We found that these choices can have a profound impact on the way that a microbial community is represented in the sequence data. The effects are relatively small compared to the variation in human stool samples; however, care should be taken to use polymerases with the highest possible fidelity and to minimize the number of rounds of PCR. These results also underscore that it is not possible to directly compare sequence data generated under different PCR conditions. PCR amplification of 16S rRNA genes is a critical yet underappreciated step in the generation of sequence data to describe the taxonomic composition of microbial communities. Numerous factors in the design of PCR can impact the sequencing error rate, the abundance of chimeric sequences, and the degree to which the fragments in the product represent their abundance in the original sample (i.e., bias). We compared the performance of high fidelity polymerases and various numbers of rounds of amplification when amplifying a mock community and human stool samples. Although it was impossible to derive specific recommendations, we did observe general trends. Namely, using a polymerase with the highest possible fidelity and minimizing the number of rounds of PCR reduced the sequencing error rate, fraction of chimeric sequences, and bias. Evidence of bias at the sequence level was subtle and could not be ascribed to the fragments’ fraction of bases that were guanines or cytosines. When analyzing mock community data, the amount that the community deviated from the expected composition increased with the number of rounds of PCR. This bias was inconsistent for human stool samples. Overall, the results underscore the difficulty of comparing sequence data that are generated by different PCR protocols. However, the results indicate that the variation in human stool samples is generally larger than that introduced by the choice of polymerase or number of rounds of PCR. IMPORTANCE A steep decline in sequencing costs drove an explosion in studies characterizing microbial communities from diverse environments. Although a significant amount of effort has gone into understanding the error profiles of DNA sequencers, little has been done to understand the downstream effects of the PCR amplification protocol. We quantified the effects of the choice of polymerase and number of PCR cycles on the quality of downstream data. We found that these choices can have a profound impact on the way that a microbial community is represented in the sequence data. The effects are relatively small compared to the variation in human stool samples; however, care should be taken to use polymerases with the highest possible fidelity and to minimize the number of rounds of PCR. These results also underscore that it is not possible to directly compare sequence data generated under different PCR conditions.
ABSTRACT PCR amplification of 16S rRNA genes is a critical yet underappreciated step in the generation of sequence data to describe the taxonomic composition of microbial communities. Numerous factors in the design of PCR can impact the sequencing error rate, the abundance of chimeric sequences, and the degree to which the fragments in the product represent their abundance in the original sample (i.e., bias). We compared the performance of high fidelity polymerases and various numbers of rounds of amplification when amplifying a mock community and human stool samples. Although it was impossible to derive specific recommendations, we did observe general trends. Namely, using a polymerase with the highest possible fidelity and minimizing the number of rounds of PCR reduced the sequencing error rate, fraction of chimeric sequences, and bias. Evidence of bias at the sequence level was subtle and could not be ascribed to the fragments’ fraction of bases that were guanines or cytosines. When analyzing mock community data, the amount that the community deviated from the expected composition increased with the number of rounds of PCR. This bias was inconsistent for human stool samples. Overall, the results underscore the difficulty of comparing sequence data that are generated by different PCR protocols. However, the results indicate that the variation in human stool samples is generally larger than that introduced by the choice of polymerase or number of rounds of PCR. IMPORTANCE A steep decline in sequencing costs drove an explosion in studies characterizing microbial communities from diverse environments. Although a significant amount of effort has gone into understanding the error profiles of DNA sequencers, little has been done to understand the downstream effects of the PCR amplification protocol. We quantified the effects of the choice of polymerase and number of PCR cycles on the quality of downstream data. We found that these choices can have a profound impact on the way that a microbial community is represented in the sequence data. The effects are relatively small compared to the variation in human stool samples; however, care should be taken to use polymerases with the highest possible fidelity and to minimize the number of rounds of PCR. These results also underscore that it is not possible to directly compare sequence data generated under different PCR conditions.
ABSTRACTPCR amplification of 16S rRNA genes is a critical yet underappreciated step in the generation of sequence data to describe the taxonomic composition of microbial communities. Numerous factors in the design of PCR can impact the sequencing error rate, the abundance of chimeric sequences, and the degree to which the fragments in the product represent their abundance in the original sample (i.e., bias). We compared the performance of high fidelity polymerases and various numbers of rounds of amplification when amplifying a mock community and human stool samples. Although it was impossible to derive specific recommendations, we did observe general trends. Namely, using a polymerase with the highest possible fidelity and minimizing the number of rounds of PCR reduced the sequencing error rate, fraction of chimeric sequences, and bias. Evidence of bias at the sequence level was subtle and could not be ascribed to the fragments’ fraction of bases that were guanines or cytosines. When analyzing mock community data, the amount that the community deviated from the expected composition increased with the number of rounds of PCR. This bias was inconsistent for human stool samples. Overall, the results underscore the difficulty of comparing sequence data that are generated by different PCR protocols. However, the results indicate that the variation in human stool samples is generally larger than that introduced by the choice of polymerase or number of rounds of PCR.IMPORTANCE A steep decline in sequencing costs drove an explosion in studies characterizing microbial communities from diverse environments. Although a significant amount of effort has gone into understanding the error profiles of DNA sequencers, little has been done to understand the downstream effects of the PCR amplification protocol. We quantified the effects of the choice of polymerase and number of PCR cycles on the quality of downstream data. We found that these choices can have a profound impact on the way that a microbial community is represented in the sequence data. The effects are relatively small compared to the variation in human stool samples; however, care should be taken to use polymerases with the highest possible fidelity and to minimize the number of rounds of PCR. These results also underscore that it is not possible to directly compare sequence data generated under different PCR conditions.
Author Schloss, Patrick D.
Sze, Marc A.
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Marc A.
  orcidid: 0000-0002-3532-9653
  surname: Sze
  fullname: Sze, Marc A.
  organization: Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Patrick D.
  orcidid: 0000-0002-6935-4275
  surname: Schloss
  fullname: Schloss, Patrick D.
  organization: Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31118299$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNp1ktFr2zAQxs3oWLuu73sagr3sJZ0lWbL9Mgjp1gVKV5K8i5N8ahRsKZPtQf_7yUlX2sKe9HH3u4_T3b3PTnzwmGUfaX5JKau-duv9FiNe5jmVfEbrN9kZ42U9E3nBTp7p0-yi73f5hDEpS_kuO-WU0orV9Vm23WyRLLs9mIEES65u5-QutA8dRuiRgG_I7dhpjFNyFUbf9JOad_vWWWdgcMET58ndYkWSonJN4ip5XKNHssbfI3qD5AoG-JC9tdD2ePH4nmebH983i5-zm1_Xy8X8ZmaEkMMMtAZes5oWXArdWOS2tDaFRNmUNrfMCq4pBWiMrW1Z0xJEooFjZVml-Xm2PNo2AXZqH10H8UEFcOoQCPFeQRycaVFBqUGDMdAUttCSVxZB0qIsLNWibljy-nb02o-6w8agHyK0L0xfZrzbqvvwR0nBaVXRZPDl0SCGNIp-UJ3rDbYteAxjrxjjjOY1ZzKhn1-huzBGnyY1UZyKQlQT9el5R0-t_NtnAvIjYGLo-4j2CaG5mq5GPV6NOlyNolOJfFVi3HBYbPqTa_9f-BcP2Mea
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_1038_s41596_020_0362_0
crossref_primary_10_1128_mSphere_00869_20
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00792_021_01249_6
crossref_primary_10_3389_fgene_2021_644484
crossref_primary_10_3748_wjg_v29_i6_967
crossref_primary_10_3389_fmicb_2020_541554
crossref_primary_10_1038_s41564_021_00904_0
crossref_primary_10_1128_msystems_00294_21
crossref_primary_10_3389_fmars_2022_1021647
crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_021_96556_5
crossref_primary_10_3389_fmicb_2023_1092216
crossref_primary_10_3389_fragi_2024_1353082
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_isci_2022_103998
crossref_primary_10_1097_CM9_0000000000000871
crossref_primary_10_1093_toxsci_kfac029
crossref_primary_10_1128_mBio_00258_20
crossref_primary_10_35848_1347_4065_abb4a9
crossref_primary_10_3739_rikusui_85_1
crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_022_05936_y
crossref_primary_10_3390_w15020271
crossref_primary_10_1111_een_12831
crossref_primary_10_3389_fbioe_2022_1045154
crossref_primary_10_1186_s12866_021_02122_4
crossref_primary_10_3390_genes12040564
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00253_021_11353_4
crossref_primary_10_1094_PDIS_04_23_0631_RE
crossref_primary_10_1007_s13744_022_01011_3
crossref_primary_10_1186_s13059_022_02722_x
crossref_primary_10_1099_mgen_0_001115
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jmoldx_2020_12_009
crossref_primary_10_1111_fwb_14253
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_mimet_2020_106033
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_mib_2020_06_001
crossref_primary_10_1128_aem_01537_24
crossref_primary_10_3390_genes11080878
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_dci_2022_104590
crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_023_40799_x
crossref_primary_10_1186_s12866_021_02288_x
crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_022_18532_x
crossref_primary_10_3390_ma14010177
crossref_primary_10_1002_edn3_368
crossref_primary_10_3389_fmicb_2021_745076
crossref_primary_10_3897_mbmg_5_67533
crossref_primary_10_1186_s40168_021_01059_0
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_mimet_2021_106271
crossref_primary_10_3897_mbmg_6_77704
crossref_primary_10_1007_s13365_023_01157_9
crossref_primary_10_1093_bioinformatics_btad002
crossref_primary_10_1099_acmi_0_000868_v3
crossref_primary_10_3390_microorganisms11051222
crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_023_46062_7
crossref_primary_10_3390_microorganisms11030804
crossref_primary_10_1111_eva_12956
crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_021_85484_z
crossref_primary_10_1098_rspb_2021_2193
crossref_primary_10_1186_s40168_024_01998_4
crossref_primary_10_1128_msystems_01025_23
crossref_primary_10_7717_peerj_14598
crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_022_16052_2
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_mucimm_2024_03_007
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_foodcont_2023_110161
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2024_173297
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_biochi_2024_01_013
crossref_primary_10_1038_s41587_023_01754_3
crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_023_33959_6
crossref_primary_10_1002_elps_202300160
crossref_primary_10_1093_gigascience_giac065
crossref_primary_10_1128_mSphere_00693_19
crossref_primary_10_11614_KSL_2024_57_4_348
crossref_primary_10_1093_gigascience_giac102
crossref_primary_10_1007_s10592_020_01275_5
crossref_primary_10_1128_aem_02165_22
crossref_primary_10_1038_s42003_021_02930_4
crossref_primary_10_1093_nar_gkad790
crossref_primary_10_1186_s12866_023_02851_8
Cites_doi 10.1038/nmeth896
10.1016/j.cell.2016.08.007
10.1186/s13073-016-0298-8
10.1093/nar/gkv717
10.1111/1462-2920.13023
10.2307/2413465
10.1038/nbt.3960
10.1128/msphere.00560-17
10.1016/j.watres.2015.12.010
10.1111/j.1574-6968.2010.01965.x
10.1128/msystems.00199-16
10.1016/j.jid.2016.01.016
10.1186/s12866-015-0351-6
10.1128/mbio.00525-18
10.7717/peerj.2584
10.1128/msystems.00217-17
10.1101/124149
10.1093/bioinformatics/btr381
10.1186/s12866-017-0983-9
10.1186/1471-2105-12-38
10.1371/journal.pone.0027310
10.1128/mspheredirect.00073-17
10.1186/1471-2180-14-103
10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0951
10.1073/pnas.1000080107
10.1038/nature11234
10.1128/AEM.01043-13
10.1038/nbt.3981
10.1101/gr.112730.110
10.1038/nmeth.3869
10.1128/AEM.71.12.8966-8969.2005
10.1128/mbio.00201-16
10.1046/j.1365-294X.1997.00205.x
10.1101/081257
10.1128/AEM.01451-14
10.1128/aem.62.2.625-630.1996
10.1038/nbt.3601
10.1186/s12915-014-0087-z
10.1093/nar/24.18.3546
10.1111/j.1574-6941.1998.tb00500.x
10.1128/mbio.01018-16
10.1128/msystems.00191-16
10.1128/mbio.00630-18
10.1371/journal.pone.0134802
10.1128/AEM.01132-16
10.1371/journal.pone.0169774
10.1128/AEM.01541-09
10.1038/nmeth.2276
10.1128/msystems.00021-16
10.1099/13500872-142-5-1107
10.1155/2014/287430
10.1128/AEM.64.10.3724-3730.1998
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright Copyright © 2019 Sze and Schloss.
Copyright © 2019 Sze and Schloss. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Copyright © 2019 Sze and Schloss. 2019 Sze and Schloss
Copyright_xml – notice: Copyright © 2019 Sze and Schloss.
– notice: Copyright © 2019 Sze and Schloss. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
– notice: Copyright © 2019 Sze and Schloss. 2019 Sze and Schloss
DBID AAYXX
CITATION
CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
3V.
7X7
7XB
8FE
8FH
8FI
8FJ
8FK
ABUWG
AFKRA
AZQEC
BBNVY
BENPR
BHPHI
CCPQU
DWQXO
FYUFA
GHDGH
GNUQQ
HCIFZ
K9.
LK8
M0S
M7P
PHGZM
PHGZT
PIMPY
PKEHL
PQEST
PQGLB
PQQKQ
PQUKI
PRINS
7X8
5PM
DOA
DOI 10.1128/mSphere.00163-19
DatabaseName CrossRef
Medline
MEDLINE
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE
MEDLINE
PubMed
ProQuest Central (Corporate)
Health & Medical Collection
ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)
ProQuest SciTech Collection
ProQuest Natural Science Collection
Hospital Premium Collection
Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)
ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)
ProQuest Central (Alumni)
ProQuest Central UK/Ireland
ProQuest Central Essentials
Biological Science Collection
ProQuest Central
Natural Science Collection
ProQuest One Community College
ProQuest Central Korea
Health Research Premium Collection
Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)
ProQuest Central Student
SciTech Premium Collection
ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)
ProQuest Biological Science Collection
ProQuest Health & Medical Collection
Biological Science Database
ProQuest Central Premium
ProQuest One Academic (New)
Publicly Available Content Database
ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)
ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)
ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences
ProQuest One Academic
ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition
ProQuest Central China
MEDLINE - Academic
PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)
DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
DatabaseTitle CrossRef
MEDLINE
Medline Complete
MEDLINE with Full Text
PubMed
MEDLINE (Ovid)
Publicly Available Content Database
ProQuest Central Student
ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)
ProQuest Central Essentials
ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)
ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)
SciTech Premium Collection
ProQuest One Community College
ProQuest Natural Science Collection
ProQuest Central China
ProQuest Central
ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences
Health Research Premium Collection
Health and Medicine Complete (Alumni Edition)
Natural Science Collection
ProQuest Central Korea
Biological Science Collection
ProQuest Central (New)
ProQuest Biological Science Collection
ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition
ProQuest Hospital Collection
Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)
Biological Science Database
ProQuest SciTech Collection
ProQuest Hospital Collection (Alumni)
ProQuest Health & Medical Complete
ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition
ProQuest One Academic
ProQuest One Academic (New)
ProQuest Central (Alumni)
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList MEDLINE - Academic
MEDLINE
CrossRef

Publicly Available Content Database
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: DOA
  name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
  url: https://www.doaj.org/
  sourceTypes: Open Website
– sequence: 2
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 3
  dbid: EIF
  name: MEDLINE
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 4
  dbid: BENPR
  name: ProQuest Central
  url: https://www.proquest.com/central
  sourceTypes: Aggregation Database
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Biology
DocumentTitleAlternate Quantifying the Effects of PCR Conditions
EISSN 2379-5042
ExternalDocumentID oai_doaj_org_article_a7babaccad4f4b638fea61474f1b59d2
PMC6531881
31118299
10_1128_mSphere_00163_19
Genre Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
GrantInformation_xml – fundername: NCI NIH HHS
  grantid: R01 CA215574
– fundername: NCATS NIH HHS
  grantid: UL1 TR002240
– fundername: ;
– fundername: ;
  grantid: P30DK034933; 5U01AI124255; R01CA215574
– fundername: ;
  grantid: UL1TR002240
GroupedDBID 0R~
53G
5VS
7X7
8FE
8FH
8FI
8FJ
AAFWJ
AAGFI
AAUOK
AAYXX
ABUWG
ADBBV
AFKRA
AFPKN
ALIPV
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
AOIJS
BBNVY
BCNDV
BENPR
BHPHI
BPHCQ
BVXVI
CCPQU
CITATION
DIK
EBS
EJD
FRP
FYUFA
GROUPED_DOAJ
H13
HCIFZ
HMCUK
HYE
KQ8
LK8
M48
M7P
M~E
O9-
OK1
PGMZT
PHGZM
PHGZT
PIMPY
PQQKQ
PROAC
R9-
RHI
RPM
RSF
UKHRP
CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
PQGLB
3V.
7XB
8FK
AZQEC
DWQXO
GNUQQ
K9.
PKEHL
PQEST
PQUKI
PRINS
7X8
5PM
PUEGO
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c556t-abba392914365bdfe3f7ffa3957d7f0f2f53b11aadcf9f7917a5291a3e8f28b3
IEDL.DBID M48
ISSN 2379-5042
IngestDate Wed Aug 27 01:24:46 EDT 2025
Thu Aug 21 17:50:40 EDT 2025
Thu Jul 10 23:01:32 EDT 2025
Fri Jul 25 12:10:07 EDT 2025
Mon Jul 21 06:04:33 EDT 2025
Tue Jul 01 02:16:56 EDT 2025
Thu Apr 24 22:59:18 EDT 2025
IsDoiOpenAccess true
IsOpenAccess true
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 3
Keywords environmental microbiology
polymerase
bias
sequence analysis
microbial ecology
microbiome
PCR
16S rRNA gene
Language English
License Copyright © 2019 Sze and Schloss.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c556t-abba392914365bdfe3f7ffa3957d7f0f2f53b11aadcf9f7917a5291a3e8f28b3
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
Citation Sze MA, Schloss PD. 2019. The impact of DNA polymerase and number of rounds of amplification in PCR on 16S rRNA gene sequence data. mSphere 4:e00163-19. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSphere.00163-19.
ORCID 0000-0002-3532-9653
0000-0002-6935-4275
OpenAccessLink https://doaj.org/article/a7babaccad4f4b638fea61474f1b59d2
PMID 31118299
PQID 2233154586
PQPubID 2045592
ParticipantIDs doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_a7babaccad4f4b638fea61474f1b59d2
pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6531881
proquest_miscellaneous_2232109326
proquest_journals_2233154586
pubmed_primary_31118299
crossref_primary_10_1128_mSphere_00163_19
crossref_citationtrail_10_1128_mSphere_00163_19
ProviderPackageCode CITATION
AAYXX
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 20190522
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2019-05-22
PublicationDate_xml – month: 5
  year: 2019
  text: 20190522
  day: 22
PublicationDecade 2010
PublicationPlace United States
PublicationPlace_xml – name: United States
– name: Washington
– name: 1752 N St., N.W., Washington, DC
PublicationTitle mSphere
PublicationTitleAlternate mSphere
PublicationYear 2019
Publisher American Society for Microbiology
Publisher_xml – name: American Society for Microbiology
References e_1_3_2_26_2
e_1_3_2_49_2
e_1_3_2_28_2
e_1_3_2_41_2
e_1_3_2_20_2
e_1_3_2_43_2
e_1_3_2_22_2
e_1_3_2_45_2
e_1_3_2_24_2
e_1_3_2_47_2
e_1_3_2_9_2
e_1_3_2_16_2
e_1_3_2_37_2
e_1_3_2_7_2
e_1_3_2_18_2
e_1_3_2_39_2
R Core Team (e_1_3_2_54_2) 2018
e_1_3_2_10_2
e_1_3_2_31_2
e_1_3_2_52_2
e_1_3_2_5_2
e_1_3_2_12_2
e_1_3_2_33_2
e_1_3_2_3_2
e_1_3_2_14_2
e_1_3_2_35_2
e_1_3_2_50_2
e_1_3_2_27_2
e_1_3_2_48_2
e_1_3_2_29_2
e_1_3_2_40_2
e_1_3_2_21_2
e_1_3_2_42_2
e_1_3_2_23_2
e_1_3_2_44_2
e_1_3_2_25_2
e_1_3_2_46_2
e_1_3_2_15_2
e_1_3_2_38_2
e_1_3_2_8_2
e_1_3_2_17_2
e_1_3_2_6_2
e_1_3_2_19_2
e_1_3_2_30_2
e_1_3_2_53_2
e_1_3_2_32_2
e_1_3_2_51_2
e_1_3_2_11_2
e_1_3_2_34_2
e_1_3_2_4_2
e_1_3_2_13_2
e_1_3_2_36_2
e_1_3_2_2_2
References_xml – ident: e_1_3_2_37_2
  doi: 10.1038/nmeth896
– ident: e_1_3_2_41_2
  doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.08.007
– ident: e_1_3_2_50_2
  doi: 10.1186/s13073-016-0298-8
– ident: e_1_3_2_25_2
  doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv717
– ident: e_1_3_2_22_2
  doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.13023
– ident: e_1_3_2_33_2
  doi: 10.2307/2413465
– ident: e_1_3_2_14_2
  doi: 10.1038/nbt.3960
– ident: e_1_3_2_44_2
  doi: 10.1128/msphere.00560-17
– ident: e_1_3_2_9_2
  doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2015.12.010
– ident: e_1_3_2_12_2
  doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2010.01965.x
– ident: e_1_3_2_11_2
  doi: 10.1128/msystems.00199-16
– ident: e_1_3_2_17_2
  doi: 10.1016/j.jid.2016.01.016
– ident: e_1_3_2_30_2
  doi: 10.1186/s12866-015-0351-6
– ident: e_1_3_2_49_2
  doi: 10.1128/mbio.00525-18
– ident: e_1_3_2_52_2
  doi: 10.7717/peerj.2584
– ident: e_1_3_2_2_2
  doi: 10.1128/msystems.00217-17
– ident: e_1_3_2_38_2
  doi: 10.1101/124149
– ident: e_1_3_2_36_2
  doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr381
– ident: e_1_3_2_6_2
  doi: 10.1186/s12866-017-0983-9
– ident: e_1_3_2_40_2
  doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-12-38
– ident: e_1_3_2_20_2
  doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027310
– ident: e_1_3_2_53_2
  doi: 10.1128/mspheredirect.00073-17
– ident: e_1_3_2_8_2
  doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-14-103
– volume-title: R: a language and environment for statistical computing
  year: 2018
  ident: e_1_3_2_54_2
– ident: e_1_3_2_10_2
  doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0951
– ident: e_1_3_2_18_2
  doi: 10.1073/pnas.1000080107
– ident: e_1_3_2_3_2
  doi: 10.1038/nature11234
– ident: e_1_3_2_19_2
  doi: 10.1128/AEM.01043-13
– ident: e_1_3_2_16_2
  doi: 10.1038/nbt.3981
– ident: e_1_3_2_15_2
  doi: 10.1101/gr.112730.110
– ident: e_1_3_2_46_2
  doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3869
– ident: e_1_3_2_28_2
  doi: 10.1128/AEM.71.12.8966-8969.2005
– ident: e_1_3_2_4_2
  doi: 10.1128/mbio.00201-16
– ident: e_1_3_2_32_2
  doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294X.1997.00205.x
– ident: e_1_3_2_47_2
  doi: 10.1101/081257
– ident: e_1_3_2_35_2
  doi: 10.1128/AEM.01451-14
– ident: e_1_3_2_31_2
  doi: 10.1128/aem.62.2.625-630.1996
– ident: e_1_3_2_39_2
  doi: 10.1038/nbt.3601
– ident: e_1_3_2_45_2
  doi: 10.1186/s12915-014-0087-z
– ident: e_1_3_2_27_2
  doi: 10.1093/nar/24.18.3546
– ident: e_1_3_2_34_2
  doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.1998.tb00500.x
– ident: e_1_3_2_42_2
  doi: 10.1128/mbio.01018-16
– ident: e_1_3_2_48_2
  doi: 10.1128/msystems.00191-16
– ident: e_1_3_2_43_2
  doi: 10.1128/mbio.00630-18
– ident: e_1_3_2_7_2
  doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134802
– ident: e_1_3_2_5_2
  doi: 10.1128/AEM.01132-16
– ident: e_1_3_2_24_2
  doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169774
– ident: e_1_3_2_51_2
  doi: 10.1128/AEM.01541-09
– ident: e_1_3_2_21_2
  doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2276
– ident: e_1_3_2_13_2
  doi: 10.1128/msystems.00021-16
– ident: e_1_3_2_23_2
  doi: 10.1099/13500872-142-5-1107
– ident: e_1_3_2_26_2
  doi: 10.1155/2014/287430
– ident: e_1_3_2_29_2
  doi: 10.1128/AEM.64.10.3724-3730.1998
SSID ssj0001626676
Score 2.4359596
Snippet A steep decline in sequencing costs drove an explosion in studies characterizing microbial communities from diverse environments. Although a significant amount...
PCR amplification of 16S rRNA genes is a critical yet underappreciated step in the generation of sequence data to describe the taxonomic composition of...
ABSTRACTPCR amplification of 16S rRNA genes is a critical yet underappreciated step in the generation of sequence data to describe the taxonomic composition of...
ABSTRACT PCR amplification of 16S rRNA genes is a critical yet underappreciated step in the generation of sequence data to describe the taxonomic composition...
SourceID doaj
pubmedcentral
proquest
pubmed
crossref
SourceType Open Website
Open Access Repository
Aggregation Database
Index Database
Enrichment Source
SubjectTerms 16S rRNA gene
Abundance
Bacteria - genetics
Bias
Data analysis
Deoxyribonucleic acid
DNA
DNA polymerase
DNA, Bacterial - genetics
DNA-directed DNA polymerase
DNA-Directed DNA Polymerase - genetics
DNA-Directed DNA Polymerase - standards
Ecological and Evolutionary Science
environmental microbiology
Feces - microbiology
Fidelity
Humans
Investigations
microbial ecology
microbiome
Microbiota
Nucleotide sequence
PCR
Pipelines
Polymerase chain reaction
Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods
Polymerase Chain Reaction - standards
Researchers
RNA, Ribosomal, 16S - genetics
rRNA 16S
Sequence Analysis, DNA - standards
Software
Taxonomy
SummonAdditionalLinks – databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
  dbid: DOA
  link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV3dS-QwEA8iCPdy3Pet50kOfLmHspuvpn1cv_AOXGTXA9_CpE1Q0K6464P_vTNpLbty6ItvoZm2aWbSmclMfsPYngpa-FqVWSi8ojDjKANldQZlEMbKUIVU6_B0kp_8038vzMVKqS_KCWvhgduJG4L14AHfU-uoPUpLDIAqxeoovCnr9PdFnbfiTKXdFbTTc9vHJWUxvJnRMf1AkYdcZQSss6KHElz__2zM56mSK7rn-AN73xmNfNwO9iPbCM0nttWWkXz4zC6R1_xPOu7I55EfTsb8bH79QNtNi8Chqfkk1f2gzimVUVpQa0y55LHbsuNXDT87mHJsiXzG76b4DEKk5rMu1ZofwhK-sPPjo_ODk6yroJBVxuTLDLwHMoDQKMqNr2NQ0cYIFJurbRxFGY3yQgDUVSyjRdcNDFKDCkWUyLyvbLOZN-E746NClwLJUbkBsgGVWCWjVboqag3W-AEbPk2nqzp0cSpyce2SlyEL1zHAJQY4UQ7Y7_6O2xZZ4wXafeJQT0eY2OkCSorrJMW9JikDtvPEX9ct1IVD60il4GE-YL_6blxiFDeBJszvE40k1C2JNN9acehHogR5aCWO0K4JytpQ13uaq8sE453j768oxPZbfNsP9g4tuZLSGqTcYZvLu_vwE62lpd9NC-MRLgsU0Q
  priority: 102
  providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals
– databaseName: Health & Medical Collection
  dbid: 7X7
  link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV3da9swEBdbx2AvY9_L1hYN9rIHk-jLsp9G2q50g4WSdJA3c7KltdDZXZI-9L_fnaK4zSh9E9bZHL6T7nR3-h1jn5XXwjWqzHzhFKUZRxkoqzMovTBW-trHXoc_J_nJL_1jbuYp4LZMZZWbPTFu1E1XU4x8iGZMxSxP_vXqb0Zdoyi7mlpoPGZPCLqMSrrs3N7GWNBbz22fnZTF8M-MLut7yj_kKiN4nTvWKIL23-dp_l8weccCHb9gz5PryMdrWb9kj3z7ij1dN5O8ec3OUeL8e7z0yLvAjyZjftpd3lDQaek5tA2fxO4fNDmlZkpLGo2pojykwB2_aPnp4ZTjSOQzvpjiNwiXms9SwTU_ghW8YWfH384OT7LURyGrjclXGTgH5Aaha5Qb1wSvgg0BKEPX2DAKMhjlhABo6lAGiwc4MEgNyhdBogjfsp22a_17xkeFLgWSo4kD7XI0ZbUMVum6aDRY4wZsuPmdVZ0wxqnVxWUVzxqyqJIAqiiASpQD9qV_42qNr_EA7QFJqKcjZOz4oFv8rtJCq8A6cIB62eiALKoieEAXxOognCkbOWC7G_lWabkuq1vlGrBP_TQuNMqeQOu760gjCXtLIs27tTr0nChB57QSObRbirLF6vZMe3Eewbxz3ASLQnx4mK2P7Bl6aiWVLUi5y3ZWi2u_h97Qyu1Hlf8HvooKaA
  priority: 102
  providerName: ProQuest
Title The Impact of DNA Polymerase and Number of Rounds of Amplification in PCR on 16S rRNA Gene Sequence Data
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31118299
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2233154586
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2232109326
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC6531881
https://doaj.org/article/a7babaccad4f4b638fea61474f1b59d2
Volume 4
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwjV3db9MwELdgExIviG8KozISLzyE1XYcJw8IdV8aSKuqdpP6Fp0Te5tUEmg7if733LluoahCvFnxxbF8d7nf-ew7xt4rlwpbqyJxuVUUZuwloEyaQOGENtJVLtQ6vBhk51fp14me_L4eHRdwvtO1o3pSV7Ppx58_lp9R4T-tLsDkh9_GdAPfUVAhUwnlAN1Hu2RITS8i2A87Lojds1htzhSJRnFdxy13DLJlp0I6_10Y9O-jlH_YprPH7FEElby_koIn7J5rnrIHqzKTy2fsBmWBfwnXIXnr-cmgz4ftdEnbUXPHoan5INQFoc4RlVmaU6tPZ8193NLjtw0fHo84tkQ25rMRjkEZq_k4HsXmJ7CA5-zy7PTy-DyJFRaSSutskYC1QAAJQVOmbe2d8sZ7oNhdbXzPS6-VFQKgrnzhDbp2oJEalMu9ROa-YHtN27hXjPfytBBIjsYPUpuhkaukNyqt8joFo22HHa6Xs6xi9nEqgjEtgxci8zIyoAwMKEXRYR82b3xfZd74B-0RcWhDRzmzw4N2dl1GFSzBWLCAElunHqeocu8AwYlJvbC6qGWHHaz5W67lsET0pEJwMeuwd5tuVEGKq0Dj2rtAIykrl0Salytx2MxECfLgCpyh2RKUralu9zS3NyHNd4a_xzwXr__ju2_YQwRyBZ1qkPKA7S1md-4tgqWF7bL7ZmK6bP_odDAcdcOWQzfoxS9-rhWs
linkProvider Scholars Portal
linkToHtml http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtR1db9Mw0BqbELwgvikMMBI88BC1tpM4eUCoWze1bIuqtkh7s-zEZpNGMtpOqD-K_8idk3QrQnvbWxRfoovv23e5I-SjsCEzhUgDmxiBacZeoIUMA51aFkluc-tnHZ5k8fB7-O00Ot0if9p_YbCsstWJXlEXVY5n5F0wY8JneeKvl78CnBqF2dV2hEbNFkd29RtCtsWX0QDo-4nzw4PZ_jBopgoEeRTFy0Abo9EpAEchjkzhrHDSOY35qkK6nuMuEoYxrYvcpU5COKMjgNbCJo7DB8Fr75EdeLgHemBn7yAbT64PdSA8iOU6HcqT7s8pdgewmPCIRYD9fG6YPz8l4H-u7b8VmjdM3uFj8qjxVWm_Zq4nZMuWT8n9enrl6hk5AxajI_-XJa0cHWR9Oq4uVnjKtbBUlwXN_LgRXJzg9KYFXvWxhN01J4X0vKTj_QmFKxZP6XwC78BG2HTaVHjTgV7q52R2F1v8gmyXVWlfEdpLwpQBONhUHZoYbGfOnRRhnhShlpHpkG67nSpvmprjbI0L5YMbnqiGAMoTQLG0Qz6vn7isG3rcAruHFFrDYStuf6Oa_1CNZCstjTYaBKEIHaAoEmc1-DwydMxEacE7ZLelr2r0w0Jdc3OHfFgvg2RjukaXtrryMBybfXGAeVmzwxoTwTAwTAFDucEoG6hurpTnZ757eAxaN0nY69vRek8eDGcnx-p4lB29IQ_BTUyxZoLzXbK9nF_Zt-CKLc27RgAoUXcscn8BScRJoQ
linkToPdf http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV1fb9MwELfGEIgXxN9RGGAkeOAham3HcfKAUFmpVgZV1Q6pb5ad2GzSSEbbCfWj8e24c9JsRWhve4vqa3TJ3fnufJf7EfJWuJjZQmSRS63AMmMvMkLFkckck4q73AWsw2_j5PB7_GUu5zvkz-ZbGGyr3OyJYaMuqhzPyLvgxkSo8iRd37RFTAbDj-e_IkSQwkrrBk6jVpEjt_4N6dvyw2gAsn7H-fDz8cFh1CAMRLmUySoy1hoMECBoSKQtvBNeeW-wdlUo3_PcS2EZM6bIfeYVpDZGArURLvUcHg5ue4vcVkIyNDE1V5fHO5AoJKotjPK0-3OGcwIclj4SEeFknyuOMOAF_C_I_bdX84rzGz4g95uolfZrNXtIdlz5iNypcSzXj8kJKBsdhe8taeXpYNynk-psjeddS0dNWdBxAB7BxSniOC3xqo_N7L45M6SnJZ0cTClcsWRGF1O4B47EprOm15sOzMo8Icc38YKfkt2yKt0zQntpnDEgB-9qYpuAF825VyLO0yI2StoO6W5ep86b8eaIsnGmQ5rDU90IQAcBaJZ1yPv2H-f1aI9raD-hhFo6HModfqgWP3Rj49ooa6wBkyhiDyyK1DsD0Y-KPbMyK3iH7G_kq5udYqkv9bpD3rTLYONYuDGlqy4CDcexXxxo9mp1aDkRDFPEDDhUW4qyxer2Snl6EuaIJ7D_pil7fj1br8ldMDT9dTQ-ekHuQbyYYfME5_tkd7W4cC8hJlvZV0H7KdE3bG1_AdDeTHE
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The+Impact+of+DNA+Polymerase+and+Number+of+Rounds+of+Amplification+in+PCR+on+16S+rRNA+Gene+Sequence+Data&rft.jtitle=mSphere&rft.au=Sze%2C+Marc+A&rft.au=Schloss%2C+Patrick+D&rft.date=2019-05-22&rft.issn=2379-5042&rft.eissn=2379-5042&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=3&rft_id=info:doi/10.1128%2FmSphere.00163-19&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2379-5042&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2379-5042&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2379-5042&client=summon