Literature DB >> 30885689

A comparison of storage methods for gut microbiome studies in teleosts: Insights from rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

Mathis Hildonen1, Miyako Kodama1, Lara C Puetz1, M Thomas P Gilbert1, Morten T Limborg2.   

Abstract

Immediate freezing is perhaps the most preferred method used for preserving gut microbial samples, but research on sample preservation has been principally based around samples from mammalian species, and little is known about the advantages or disadvantages relating to different storage methods for fish guts. Fish gut samples may pose additional challenges due to the different chemical and enzymatic profile, as well as the higher water content, which might affect the yield and purity of DNA recovered. To explore this, we took gut content and mucosal scrape samples from 10 rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and tested whether different preservation methods have any effect on the ability to construct high quality genomic libraries for shotgun and 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Four different storage methods were compared for the gut content samples (immediate freezing on dry ice, 96% ethanol, RNAlater and DNA/RNA shield), while two different methods were compared for mucosal scrape samples (96% ethanol and RNAlater). The samples were thereafter stored at -80 °C. Our findings concluded that 96% ethanol outperforms the other storage methods when considering DNA quantity, quality, cost and labor. Ethanol works consistently well for both gut content and mucosal scrape samples, and enables construction of DNA sequencing libraries of sufficient quantity and with a fragment length distribution suitable for shotgun sequencing. Two main conclusions from our study are i) sample storage optimisation is an important part of establishing a microbiome research program in a new species or sample type system, and ii) 96% ethanol is the preferred method for storing rainbow trout gut content and mucosal scrape samples.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aquaculture; Metagenomics; PCR inhibition; Preservation methods; Rainbow trout

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30885689     DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2019.03.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Microbiol Methods        ISSN: 0167-7012            Impact factor:   2.363


  5 in total

1.  "Unraveling the Gut Microbiome of the Genus Herichthys (Pisces: Cichlidae): What Can We Learn from Museum Specimens?"

Authors:  Omar Mejía; Andrés Sánchez-Quinto; Elizabeth S Gómez-Acata; Fabian Pérez-Miranda; Luisa I Falcón
Journal:  Curr Microbiol       Date:  2022-10-08       Impact factor: 2.343

2.  DNA/RNA Preservation in Glacial Snow and Ice Samples.

Authors:  Christopher B Trivedi; Christoph Keuschnig; Catherine Larose; Daniel Vasconcelos Rissi; Rey Mourot; James A Bradley; Matthias Winkel; Liane G Benning
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2022-05-23       Impact factor: 6.064

3.  Genome-resolved metagenomics suggests a mutualistic relationship between Mycoplasma and salmonid hosts.

Authors:  Jacob A Rasmussen; Kasper R Villumsen; David A Duchêne; Lara C Puetz; Tom O Delmont; Harald Sveier; Louise von Gersdorff Jørgensen; Kim Præbel; Michael D Martin; Anders M Bojesen; M Thomas P Gilbert; Karsten Kristiansen; Morten T Limborg
Journal:  Commun Biol       Date:  2021-05-14

4.  Sampling the fish gill microbiome: a comparison of tissue biopsies and swabs.

Authors:  Morag Clinton; Adam J Wyness; Samuel A M Martin; Andrew S Brierley; David E K Ferrier
Journal:  BMC Microbiol       Date:  2021-11-10       Impact factor: 3.605

5.  The Beta-Diversity of Siganus fuscescens-Associated Microbial Communities From Different Habitats Increases With Body Weight.

Authors:  Yongjie Wu; Fanshu Xiao; Cheng Wang; Longfei Shu; Xiafei Zheng; Kui Xu; Xiaoli Yu; Keke Zhang; Hongtian Luo; Yufeng Yang; Zhili He; Qingyun Yan
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2020-07-07       Impact factor: 5.640

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.