Literature DB >> 33854827

Long-term storage of feces at -80 °C versus -20 °C is negligible for 16S rRNA amplicon profiling of the equine bacterial microbiome.

Stefan Gavriliuc1, Mason R Stothart1, Astrid Henry1, Jocelyn Poissant1.   

Abstract

The development of next-generation sequencing technologies has spurred a surge of research on bacterial microbiome diversity and function. But despite the rapid growth of the field, many uncertainties remain regarding the impact of differing methodologies on downstream results. Sample storage temperature is conventionally thought to be among the most important factors for ensuring reproducibility across marker gene studies, but to date much of the research on this topic has focused on short-term storage in the context of clinical applications. Consequently, it has remained unclear if storage at -80 °C, widely viewed as the gold standard for long-term archival of feces, is truly required for maintaining sample integrity in amplicon-based studies. A better understanding of the impacts of long-term storage conditions is important given the substantial cost and limited availability of ultra-low temperature freezers. To this end, we compared bacterial microbiome profiles inferred from 16S V3-V4 amplicon sequencing for paired fecal samples obtained from a feral horse population from Sable Island, Nova Scotia, Canada, stored at either -80 °C or -20 °C for 4 years. We found that storage temperature did not significantly affect alpha diversity measures, including amplicon sequence variant (ASV) richness and evenness, and abundance of rare sequence variants, nor presence/absence, relative abundances and phylogenetic diversity weighted measures of beta diversity. These results indicate that storage of equine feces at -20 °C for periods ranging from a few months to a few years is equivalent to storage at -80 °C for amplicon-based microbiome studies, adding to accumulating evidence indicating that standard domestic freezers are both economical and effective for microbiome research.
© 2021 Gavriliuc et al.

Entities:  

Keywords:  16S; Amplicon; DNA metabarcoding; Equine; Equus ferus caballus; Horse; Long-term storage; Microbiome; Protocol; Sequencing

Year:  2021        PMID: 33854827      PMCID: PMC7953882          DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10837

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PeerJ        ISSN: 2167-8359            Impact factor:   2.984


  40 in total

1.  Assessment of variation in microbial community amplicon sequencing by the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project consortium.

Authors:  Rashmi Sinha; Galeb Abu-Ali; Emily Vogtmann; Anthony A Fodor; Boyu Ren; Amnon Amir; Emma Schwager; Jonathan Crabtree; Siyuan Ma; Christian C Abnet; Rob Knight; Owen White; Curtis Huttenhower
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2017-10-02       Impact factor: 54.908

2.  DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data.

Authors:  Benjamin J Callahan; Paul J McMurdie; Michael J Rosen; Andrew W Han; Amy Jo A Johnson; Susan P Holmes
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2016-05-23       Impact factor: 28.547

3.  Comparison of storage conditions for human vaginal microbiome studies.

Authors:  Guoyun Bai; Pawel Gajer; Melissa Nandy; Bing Ma; Hongqiu Yang; Joyce Sakamoto; May H Blanchard; Jacques Ravel; Rebecca M Brotman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-24       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Comparison of methods for fecal microbiome biospecimen collection.

Authors:  Christine Dominianni; Jing Wu; Richard B Hayes; Jiyoung Ahn
Journal:  BMC Microbiol       Date:  2014-04-23       Impact factor: 3.605

5.  The effects of freezing on faecal microbiota as determined using MiSeq sequencing and culture-based investigations.

Authors:  Fiona Fouhy; Jennifer Deane; Mary C Rea; Órla O'Sullivan; R Paul Ross; Grace O'Callaghan; Barry J Plant; Catherine Stanton
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-06       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  Optimizing methods and dodging pitfalls in microbiome research.

Authors:  Dorothy Kim; Casey E Hofstaedter; Chunyu Zhao; Lisa Mattei; Ceylan Tanes; Erik Clarke; Abigail Lauder; Scott Sherrill-Mix; Christel Chehoud; Judith Kelsen; Máire Conrad; Ronald G Collman; Robert Baldassano; Frederic D Bushman; Kyle Bittinger
Journal:  Microbiome       Date:  2017-05-05       Impact factor: 14.650

7.  Comparison of stool versus rectal swab samples and storage conditions on bacterial community profiles.

Authors:  Christine M Bassis; Nicholas M Moore; Karen Lolans; Anna M Seekatz; Robert A Weinstein; Vincent B Young; Mary K Hayden
Journal:  BMC Microbiol       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 3.605

8.  Correcting for Microbial Blooms in Fecal Samples during Room-Temperature Shipping.

Authors:  Amnon Amir; Daniel McDonald; Jose A Navas-Molina; Justine Debelius; James T Morton; Embriette Hyde; Adam Robbins-Pianka; Rob Knight
Journal:  mSystems       Date:  2017-03-07       Impact factor: 6.496

9.  Rapid regrowth and detection of microbial contaminants in equine fecal microbiome samples.

Authors:  Kalie F Beckers; Christopher J Schulz; Gary W Childers
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Preservation Methods Differ in Fecal Microbiome Stability, Affecting Suitability for Field Studies.

Authors:  Se Jin Song; Amnon Amir; Jessica L Metcalf; Katherine R Amato; Zhenjiang Zech Xu; Greg Humphrey; Rob Knight
Journal:  mSystems       Date:  2016-05-03       Impact factor: 6.496

View more
  1 in total

1.  Freeze-drying can replace cold-chains for transport and storage of fecal microbiome samples.

Authors:  Hanna M Bensch; Conny Tolf; Jonas Waldenström; Daniel Lundin; Markus Zöttl
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2022-03-15       Impact factor: 2.984

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.