# Open Mock-communities for 16S biome analysis **URL:** \ **Category:** User Support\ **Tags:** mock-communities, taxonomy\ **Created:** [May 31, 2022, 9:15am UTC](https://forum.qiime2.org/t/open-mock-communities-for-16s-biome-analysis/23206 "2022-05-31T09:15:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 12
**Author:** ![Nicholas\_Bokulich](https://forum.qiime2.org/user_avatar/forum.qiime2.org/nicholas_bokulich/32/19937_2.png) [@Nicholas\_Bokulich](https://forum.qiime2.org/u/Nicholas_Bokulich)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2022, 7:13pm UTC](https://forum.qiime2.org/t/open-mock-communities-for-16s-biome-analysis/23206/12 "2022-06-03T19:13:30Z")
Hi @biojack , I recommend checking the 3 papers that I suggested to you here: > [@Poor taxonomy classification on species level](https://forum.qiime2.org/t/poor-taxonomy-classification-on-species-level/23061/2): > > Hi @biojack , The V4 region of 16S cannot reliably differentiate most species, so this result is quite expected. Also at genus level 85-90% classification is normal. This is because of the limited information content of the short hypervariable regions vs. full 16S. For more prose and data on this, see the previous work on this starting with RDP's benchmarks, and then our own many benchmarks for the classifiers used in QIIME 2: [https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/AEM.00062-07#F1](https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/AEM.00062-07#F1)[https://www.…](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12669-6) All of those the mockrobiota mock communities were used in at least the first paper, and we have done quite some benchmarks in there and the 2 others, also describing various metrics to quantitatively assessing accuracy of (a) methods and (b) databases. 90% genus-level detection sounds about right. 30% species-level sounds low, but it depends on the quality and length of the mock community data so this I cannot remember off-hand... good luck! --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.qiime2.org/t/open-mock-communities-for-16s-biome-analysis/23206)._