Reporting guidelines for human microbiome research: the STORMS checklist.
Journal
Nature medicine
ISSN: 1546-170X
Titre abrégé: Nat Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9502015
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2021
11 2021
Historique:
received:
01
12
2020
accepted:
23
09
2021
pubmed:
19
11
2021
medline:
30
12
2021
entrez:
18
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The particularly interdisciplinary nature of human microbiome research makes the organization and reporting of results spanning epidemiology, biology, bioinformatics, translational medicine and statistics a challenge. Commonly used reporting guidelines for observational or genetic epidemiology studies lack key features specific to microbiome studies. Therefore, a multidisciplinary group of microbiome epidemiology researchers adapted guidelines for observational and genetic studies to culture-independent human microbiome studies, and also developed new reporting elements for laboratory, bioinformatics and statistical analyses tailored to microbiome studies. The resulting tool, called 'Strengthening The Organization and Reporting of Microbiome Studies' (STORMS), is composed of a 17-item checklist organized into six sections that correspond to the typical sections of a scientific publication, presented as an editable table for inclusion in supplementary materials. The STORMS checklist provides guidance for concise and complete reporting of microbiome studies that will facilitate manuscript preparation, peer review, and reader comprehension of publications and comparative analysis of published results.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34789871
doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01552-x
pii: 10.1038/s41591-021-01552-x
pmc: PMC9105086
mid: NIHMS1801461
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1885-1892Subventions
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM135218
Pays : United States
Organisme : Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
ID : BB/E025080/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : P30 DK098722
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA230551
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U01 CA230551
Pays : United States
Investigateurs
Cesare Furlanello
(C)
Susanna-Assunta Sansone
(SA)
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc.
Références
Wirbel, J. et al. Meta-analysis of fecal metagenomes reveals global microbial signatures that are specific for colorectal cancer. Nat. Med. 25, 679–689 (2019).
pubmed: 30936547
pmcid: 7984229
doi: 10.1038/s41591-019-0406-6
Simoneau, J., Dumontier, S., Gosselin, R. & Scott, M. S. Current RNA-seq methodology reporting limits reproducibility. Brief. Bioinform. 22, 140–145 (2021).
pubmed: 31813948
doi: 10.1093/bib/bbz124
Ten Hoopen, P. et al. The metagenomic data life-cycle: standards and best practices. Gigascience 6, 1–11 (2017).
pubmed: 28637310
pmcid: 5737865
Yilmaz, P. et al. Minimum information about a marker gene sequence (MIMARKS) and minimum information about any (x) sequence (MIxS) specifications. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 415–420 (2011).
pubmed: 21552244
pmcid: 3367316
doi: 10.1038/nbt.1823
Moher, D., Jones, A. & Lepage, L. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 285, 1992–1995 (2001).
doi: 10.1001/jama.285.15.1992
Plint, A. C. et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? Syst. Rev. 185, 5 (2006).
Vandenbroucke, J. P. et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 4, e297 (2007).
pubmed: 17941715
pmcid: 2020496
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297
Little, J. et al. STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA)—an extension of the STROBE statement. Genet. Epidemiol. 33, 581–598 (2009).
pubmed: 19278015
doi: 10.1002/gepi.20410
Bharucha, T. et al. STROBE-metagenomics: a STROBE extension statement to guide the reporting of metagenomics studies. Lancet Infect. Dis. 20, e251–e260 (2020).
pubmed: 32768390
pmcid: 7406238
doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30199-7
Sinha, R. et al. Assessment of variation in microbial community amplicon sequencing by the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project consortium. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 1077–1086 (2017).
pubmed: 28967885
pmcid: 5839636
doi: 10.1038/nbt.3981
Costea, P. I. et al. Towards standards for human fecal sample processing in metagenomic studies. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 1069–1076 (2017).
pubmed: 28967887
doi: 10.1038/nbt.3960
Santiago, A. et al. Processing faecal samples: a step forward for standards in microbial community analysis. BMC Microbiol. 14, 112 (2014).
pubmed: 24884524
pmcid: 4021188
doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-14-112
Turner, P. et al. Microbiology Investigation Criteria for Reporting Objectively (MICRO): a framework for the reporting and interpretation of clinical microbiology data. BMC Med. 17, 70 (2019).
pubmed: 30922309
pmcid: 6440102
doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1301-1
Kerns, S. L. et al. STROGAR – STrengthening the Reporting Of Genetic Association studies in Radiogenomics - ScienceDirect. Radiother. Oncol. 110, 182–188 (2014).
pubmed: 23993398
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.07.011
Sinha, R., Abnet, C. C., White, O., Knight, R. & Huttenhower, C. The microbiome quality control project: baseline study design and future directions. Genome Biol. 16, 276 (2015).
pubmed: 26653756
pmcid: 4674991
doi: 10.1186/s13059-015-0841-8
Badal, V. D. et al. Challenges in the construction of knowledge bases for human microbiome-disease associations. Microbiome 7, 129 (2019).
pubmed: 31488215
pmcid: 6728997
doi: 10.1186/s40168-019-0742-2
von Elm, E. et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 61, 344–349 (2008).
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008
Gallo, V. et al. STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology — Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME): an extension of the STROBE statement. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 42, 1–16 (2012).
Kerns, S. L. et al. STROGAR – STrengthening the Reporting Of Genetic Association studies in Radiogenomics. Radiother. Oncol. 110, 182–188 (2014).
pubmed: 23993398
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.07.011
Sinha, R. et al. Next steps in studying the human microbiome and health in prospective studies, Bethesda, MD, May 16–17, 2017. Microbiome 6, 210 (2018).
pubmed: 30477563
pmcid: 6257978
doi: 10.1186/s40168-018-0596-z
Hornung, B. V. H., Zwittink, R. D. & Kuijper, E. J. Issues and current standards of controls in microbiome research. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 95, fiz045 (2019).
pubmed: 30997495
pmcid: 6469980
doi: 10.1093/femsec/fiz045
Min, Y. et al. Sex-specific association between gut microbiome and fat distribution. Nat. Commun. 10, 2408 (2019).
pubmed: 31160598
pmcid: 6546740
doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-10440-5
Pearce, N. Classification of epidemiological study designs. Int. J. Epidemiol. 41, 393–397 (2012).
pubmed: 22493323
doi: 10.1093/ije/dys049
Jin, Y., Wu, S., Zeng, Z. & Fu, Z. Effects of environmental pollutants on gut microbiota. Environ. Pollut. 222, 1–9 (2017).
pubmed: 28086130
doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.11.045
Chen, L., Zhang, Y.-H., Huang, T. & Cai, Y.-D. Gene expression profiling gut microbiota in different races of humans. Sci. Rep. 6, 23075 (2016).
pubmed: 26975620
pmcid: 4791684
doi: 10.1038/srep23075
Yatsunenko, T. et al. Human gut microbiome viewed across age and geography. Nature 486, 222–227 (2012).
pubmed: 22699611
pmcid: 3376388
doi: 10.1038/nature11053
Patino, C. M., Ferreira, J. C., Patino, C. M. & Ferreira, J. C. Inclusion and exclusion criteria in research studies: definitions and why they matter. J. Bras. Pneumol. 44, 84–84 (2018).
pubmed: 29791550
pmcid: 6044655
doi: 10.1590/s1806-37562018000000088
Yan, L. et al. OSAT: a tool for sample-to-batch allocations in genomics experiments. BMC Genomics 13, 689 (2012).
pubmed: 23228338
pmcid: 3548766
doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-689
VanderWeele, T. J. Principles of confounder selection. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 34, 211–219 (2019).
pubmed: 30840181
pmcid: 6447501
doi: 10.1007/s10654-019-00494-6
Hernán, M. A., Hernández-Díaz, S., Werler, M. M. & Mitchell, A. A. Causal knowledge as a prerequisite for confounding evaluation: an application to birth defects epidemiology. Am. J. Epidemiol. 155, 176–184 (2002).
pubmed: 11790682
doi: 10.1093/aje/155.2.176
Lv, B.-M., Quan, Y. & Zhang, H.-Y. Causal inference in microbiome medicine: principles and applications. Trends Microbiol. 29, 736–746 (2021).
pubmed: 33895062
doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2021.03.015
Ghosh, T. S., Das, M., Jeffery, I. B. & O’Toole, P. W. Adjusting for age improves identification of gut microbiome alterations in multiple diseases. eLife 9, e50240 (2020).
pubmed: 32159510
pmcid: 7065848
doi: 10.7554/eLife.50240
Soneson, C., Gerster, S. & Delorenzi, M. Batch effect confounding leads to strong bias in performance estimates obtained by cross-validation. PLoS One 9, e100335 (2014).
pubmed: 24967636
pmcid: 4072626
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0100335
Cole, S. R. et al. Illustrating bias due to conditioning on a collider. Int. J. Epidemiol. 39, 417–420 (2010).
pubmed: 19926667
doi: 10.1093/ije/dyp334
Textor, J., van der Zander, B., Gilthorpe, M. S., Liśkiewicz, M. & Ellison, G. T. H. Robust causal inference using directed acyclic graphs: the R package ‘dagitty’. Int. J. Epidemiol. 45, 1887–1894 (2016).
pubmed: 28089956
Loughman, A. et al. Gut microbiota composition during infancy and subsequent behavioural outcomes. EBioMedicine 52, 102640 (2020).
pubmed: 32062351
pmcid: 7016366
doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102640
Schooling, C. M. Selection bias in population-representative studies? A commentary on Deaton and Cartwright. Soc. Sci. Med. 210, 70 (2018).
pubmed: 29754782
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.04.047
Schloss, P. D. Identifying and overcoming threats to reproducibility, replicability, robustness, and generalizability in microbiome research. mBio 9, e00525-18 (2018).
pubmed: 29871915
pmcid: 5989067
doi: 10.1128/mBio.00525-18
Rosenthal, R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol. Bull. 86, 638–641 (1979).
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
Munafò, M. & Neill, J. Null is beautiful: On the importance of publishing null results. J. Psychopharmacol. 30, 585–585 (2016).
pubmed: 27313237
doi: 10.1177/0269881116638813
Rich, B. Tables of Descriptive Statistics in HTML [R package table1 version 1.4.2] (2021).
McLaren, M. R., Willis, A. D. & Callahan, B. J. Consistent and correctable bias in metagenomic sequencing experiments. eLife 8, e46923 (2019).
pubmed: 31502536
pmcid: 6739870
doi: 10.7554/eLife.46923
Hernán, M. & Robins, J.M. Causal Inference: What If (Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2020).
Höfler, M. et al. Writing a discussion section: how to integrate substantive and statistical expertise. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 18, 34 (2018).
pubmed: 29665780
pmcid: 5905138
doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0490-1
Nakai, M. et al. Essential hypertension is associated with changes in gut microbial metabolic pathways: a multisite analysis of ambulatory blood pressure. Hypertension 78, 804–815 (2021).
pubmed: 34333988
doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.121.17288
Thingholm, L. B. et al. Ecology impacts the decrease of Spirochaetes and Prevotella in the fecal gut microbiota of urban humans. BMC Microbiol 21, 276 (2021).
pubmed: 34635060
pmcid: 8504008
doi: 10.1186/s12866-021-02337-5
Wang, Q. et al. Linking gut microbiome to bone mineral density: a shotgun metagenomic dataset from 361 elderly women. Gigabyte 2021, 1–7 (2021).
doi: 10.46471/gigabyte.12
Chen, C. et al. The female urinary microbiota in relation to the reproductive tract microbiota. Gigabyte 2020, 1–9 (2020).
doi: 10.46471/gigabyte.9
Raes, J., Foerstner, K. U. & Bork, P. Get the most out of your metagenome: computational analysis of environmental sequence data. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 10, 490–498 (2007).
pubmed: 17936679
doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2007.09.001
Szucs, D. & Ioannidis, J. P. A. When null hypothesis significance testing is unsuitable for research: a reassessment. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 11, 390 (2017).
pubmed: 28824397
pmcid: 5540883
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00390
Gloor, G. B., Macklaim, J. M., Pawlowsky-Glahn, V. & Egozcue, J. J. Microbiome datasets are compositional: and this is not optional. Front. Microbiol. 8, 2224 (2017).
pubmed: 29187837
pmcid: 5695134
doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02224