Abstract:Identifying microbial taxa that differ in abundance between groups (control/treatment, healthy/diseased, etc.) is important for both basic and applied science. As in all scientific research, microbiome studies must have good statistical power to detect taxa with substantially different abundance between treatments; low power leads to poor precision and biased estimates via the winner's curse. Several studies have raised concerns about low power in microbiome studies. In this study, we investigate statistical power in differential abundance analysis. In particular, we present a novel approach for estimating the statistical power to detect effects at the level of individual taxa as a function of effect size (fold change) and mean abundance. We analysed seven real case-control microbiome datasets and developed a novel method for simulating microbiome data. We illustrate how power varies with effect size and mean abundance; our results suggest that typical differential abundance studies are underpowered for detecting changes in individual taxon.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is the low statistical power in microbiome differential abundance research. Specifically, the author focuses on the difficulty in detecting effects with significant biological significance due to insufficient statistical power when comparing the abundance differences of microbial taxa between different groups (such as control groups and treatment groups, healthy groups and diseased groups, etc.). This may lead to an increase in false - negative errors in research results and inaccurate estimation of effect sizes, thus affecting the reliability and repeatability of the research. ### Background of the paper In microbiome research, identifying microbial taxa with significant abundance differences between different groups is very important for both basic and applied sciences. However, many microbiome studies have low statistical power due to reasons such as insufficient sample size, small effect size, or inappropriate statistical methods. Low statistical power not only increases the probability of false - negative errors but also leads to biases in the estimation of effect sizes, the so - called "Winner's Curse". ### Research objectives The main objective of this paper is to evaluate the statistical power in differential abundance analysis by simulating microbiome data. Specifically, the author proposes a new method to estimate the statistical power of detecting the effect size of individual taxa, which takes into account the effects of effect size (fold change) and average abundance. The author analyzes seven real case - control microbiome datasets and develops a new method for simulating microbiome data. ### Main contributions 1. **New method**: A new method is proposed to estimate the statistical power of detecting the effect size of individual taxa, which can estimate the statistical power based on the effect size and average abundance. 2. **Data simulation**: A new method for simulating microbiome data is developed, which can more accurately reflect the distribution characteristics of actual data. 3. **Statistical power evaluation**: By comparing simulated data and real data, the changing trends of statistical power under different effect sizes and average abundances are shown, revealing the possible problem of insufficient statistical power in most microbiome differential abundance studies. ### Conclusions The research shows that the statistical power of most microbiome differential abundance studies is low, especially when the effect size is small or the average abundance of taxa is low. To improve statistical power, researchers may need to increase the sample size to ensure that they can detect effects with biological significance. In addition, the new methods and tools provided in this paper can help researchers better evaluate and design microbiome studies, thereby improving the reliability and repeatability of the research.

Investigating Statistical Power of Differential Abundance Studies

The Power of Microbiome Studies: Some Considerations on Which Alpha and Beta Metrics to Use and How to Report Results

Testing for differential abundance in compositional counts data, with application to microbiome studies

A realistic benchmark for differential abundance testing and confounder adjustment in human microbiome studies

The rise to power of the microbiome: power and sample size calculation for microbiome studies

Power and sample-size estimation for microbiome studies using pairwise distances and PERMANOVA

Elementary methods provide more replicable results in microbial differential abundance analysis

A web application for sample size and power calculation in case-control microbiome studies

Transformation and differential abundance analysis of microbiome data incorporating phylogeny

A maximum-type microbial differential abundance test with application to high-dimensional microbiome data analyses

A Survey of Statistical Methods for Microbiome Data Analysis

A comprehensive evaluation of microbial differential abundance analysis methods: current status and potential solutions

Statistical Theory and Methodology for the Analysis of Microbial Compositions, with Applications

Bayesian Modeling of Microbiome Data for Differential Abundance Analysis

Assessment of statistical methods from single cell, bulk RNA-seq, and metagenomics applied to microbiome data

Comparison study of differential abundance testing methods using two large Parkinson disease gut microbiome datasets derived from 16S amplicon sequencing

Determination of Effect Sizes for Power Analysis for Microbiome Studies Using Large Microbiome Databases

How many sites? Methods to assist design decisions when collecting multivariate data in ecology

Power and sample size calculations for testing the ratio of reproductive values in phylogenetic samples

A strategy for differential abundance analysis of sparse microbiome data with group-wise structured zeros

Biological and technical variability in mouse microbiome analysis and implications for sample size determination