BACKGROUND: We conducted a pilot study of reproducibility and associations of microbial diversity and composition in faecal microbial DNA. METHODS AND RESULTS: Participants (25 men and 26 women, aged 17-65 years) provided questionnaire data and multiple samples of one stool collected with two Polymedco and two Sarstedt devices preloaded with RNAlater. 16S rRNA genes in each faecal DNA aliquot were amplified, sequenced (Roche/454 Life Sciences) and assigned to taxa. Devices were compared for ease of use and reproducibility [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)] between duplicate aliquots on diversity and taxonomic assignment. Associations were tested by linear regression. Both collection devices were easy to use. Both alpha diversity (Shannon index) and beta diversity (UniFrac) were higher between than within duplicates (P ≤ 10(-8) ) and did not differ significantly by device (P ≥ 0·62). Reproducibility was good (ICC≥0·77) for alpha diversity and taxonomic assignment to the most abundant phyla, Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes (71·5% and 25·0% of sequences, respectively), but reproducibility was low (ICC≤0·48) for less abundant taxa. Alpha diversity was lower with nonantibiotic prescription medication (P = 0·02), with younger age (P = 0·03) and marginally with higher body mass index (P = 0·08). CONCLUSIONS: With sampling from various parts of a stool, both devices provided good reproducibility on overall microbial diversity and classification for the major phyla, but not for minor phyla. Implementation of these methods should provide insights into how broad microbial parameters, but not necessarily rare microbes, affect risk of various conditions.
BACKGROUND: We conducted a pilot study of reproducibility and associations of microbial diversity and composition in faecal microbial DNA. METHODS AND RESULTS:Participants (25 men and 26 women, aged 17-65 years) provided questionnaire data and multiple samples of one stool collected with two Polymedco and two Sarstedt devices preloaded with RNAlater. 16S rRNA genes in each faecal DNA aliquot were amplified, sequenced (Roche/454 Life Sciences) and assigned to taxa. Devices were compared for ease of use and reproducibility [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)] between duplicate aliquots on diversity and taxonomic assignment. Associations were tested by linear regression. Both collection devices were easy to use. Both alpha diversity (Shannon index) and beta diversity (UniFrac) were higher between than within duplicates (P ≤ 10(-8) ) and did not differ significantly by device (P ≥ 0·62). Reproducibility was good (ICC≥0·77) for alpha diversity and taxonomic assignment to the most abundant phyla, Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes (71·5% and 25·0% of sequences, respectively), but reproducibility was low (ICC≤0·48) for less abundant taxa. Alpha diversity was lower with nonantibiotic prescription medication (P = 0·02), with younger age (P = 0·03) and marginally with higher body mass index (P = 0·08). CONCLUSIONS: With sampling from various parts of a stool, both devices provided good reproducibility on overall microbial diversity and classification for the major phyla, but not for minor phyla. Implementation of these methods should provide insights into how broad microbial parameters, but not necessarily rare microbes, affect risk of various conditions.
Authors: Paul B Eckburg; Elisabeth M Bik; Charles N Bernstein; Elizabeth Purdom; Les Dethlefsen; Michael Sargent; Steven R Gill; Karen E Nelson; David A Relman Journal: Science Date: 2005-04-14 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Anne Salonen; Janne Nikkilä; Jonna Jalanka-Tuovinen; Outi Immonen; Mirjana Rajilić-Stojanović; Riina A Kekkonen; Airi Palva; Willem M de Vos Journal: J Microbiol Methods Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 2.363
Authors: Hedvig E Jakobsson; Cecilia Jernberg; Anders F Andersson; Maria Sjölund-Karlsson; Janet K Jansson; Lars Engstrand Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-03-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Elizabeth K Costello; Christian L Lauber; Micah Hamady; Noah Fierer; Jeffrey I Gordon; Rob Knight Journal: Science Date: 2009-11-05 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Jane Peterson; Susan Garges; Maria Giovanni; Pamela McInnes; Lu Wang; Jeffery A Schloss; Vivien Bonazzi; Jean E McEwen; Kris A Wetterstrand; Carolyn Deal; Carl C Baker; Valentina Di Francesco; T Kevin Howcroft; Robert W Karp; R Dwayne Lunsford; Christopher R Wellington; Tsegahiwot Belachew; Michael Wright; Christina Giblin; Hagit David; Melody Mills; Rachelle Salomon; Christopher Mullins; Beena Akolkar; Lisa Begg; Cindy Davis; Lindsey Grandison; Michael Humble; Jag Khalsa; A Roger Little; Hannah Peavy; Carol Pontzer; Matthew Portnoy; Michael H Sayre; Pamela Starke-Reed; Samir Zakhari; Jennifer Read; Bracie Watson; Mark Guyer Journal: Genome Res Date: 2009-10-09 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: J R Cole; Q Wang; E Cardenas; J Fish; B Chai; R J Farris; A S Kulam-Syed-Mohideen; D M McGarrell; T Marsh; G M Garrity; J M Tiedje Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2008-11-12 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Peter J Turnbaugh; Micah Hamady; Tanya Yatsunenko; Brandi L Cantarel; Alexis Duncan; Ruth E Ley; Mitchell L Sogin; William J Jones; Bruce A Roe; Jason P Affourtit; Michael Egholm; Bernard Henrissat; Andrew C Heath; Rob Knight; Jeffrey I Gordon Journal: Nature Date: 2008-11-30 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Marcus B Jones; Sarah K Highlander; Ericka L Anderson; Weizhong Li; Mark Dayrit; Niels Klitgord; Martin M Fabani; Victor Seguritan; Jessica Green; David T Pride; Shibu Yooseph; William Biggs; Karen E Nelson; J Craig Venter Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-10-28 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: David A Drew; Paul Lochhead; Galeb Abu-Ali; Andrew T Chan; Curtis Huttenhower; Jacques Izard Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 4.254