Literature DB >> 34012005

An inter-laboratory study to investigate the impact of the bioinformatics component on microbiome analysis using mock communities.

Denise M O'Sullivan1, Ronan M Doyle2, Sasithon Temisak3, Nicholas Redshaw3, Alexandra S Whale3, Grace Logan4, Jiabin Huang5, Nicole Fischer5, Gregory C A Amos6, Mark D Preston6, Julian R Marchesi7,8, Josef Wagner9,10, Julian Parkhill9,11, Yair Motro12, Hubert Denise13,14, Robert D Finn13, Kathryn A Harris2, Gemma L Kay15,16, Justin O'Grady15,16, Emma Ransom-Jones17, Huihai Wu18, Emma Laing18, David J Studholme19, Ernest Diez Benavente20, Jody Phelan20, Taane G Clark20,21, Jacob Moran-Gilad12, Jim F Huggett3,22.   

Abstract

Despite the advent of whole genome metagenomics, targeted approaches (such as 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing) continue to be valuable for determining the microbial composition of samples. Amplicon microbiome sequencing can be performed on clinical samples from a normally sterile site to determine the aetiology of an infection (usually single pathogen identification) or samples from more complex niches such as human mucosa or environmental samples where multiple microorganisms need to be identified. The methodologies are frequently applied to determine both presence of micro-organisms and their quantity or relative abundance. There are a number of technical steps required to perform microbial community profiling, many of which may have appreciable precision and bias that impacts final results. In order for these methods to be applied with the greatest accuracy, comparative studies across different laboratories are warranted. In this study we explored the impact of the bioinformatic approaches taken in different laboratories on microbiome assessment using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing results. Data were generated from two mock microbial community samples which were amplified using primer sets spanning five different variable regions of 16S rRNA genes. The PCR-sequencing analysis included three technical repeats of the process to determine the repeatability of their methods. Thirteen laboratories participated in the study, and each analysed the same FASTQ files using their choice of pipeline. This study captured the methods used and the resulting sequence annotation and relative abundance output from bioinformatic analyses. Results were compared to digital PCR assessment of the absolute abundance of each target representing each organism in the mock microbial community samples and also to analyses of shotgun metagenome sequence data. This ring trial demonstrates that the choice of bioinformatic analysis pipeline alone can result in different estimations of the composition of the microbiome when using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing data. The study observed differences in terms of both presence and abundance of organisms and provides a resource for ensuring reproducible pipeline development and application. The observed differences were especially prevalent when using custom databases and applying high stringency operational taxonomic unit (OTU) cut-off limits. In order to apply sequencing approaches with greater accuracy, the impact of different analytical steps needs to be clearly delineated and solutions devised to harmonise microbiome analysis results.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 34012005     DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-89881-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  30 in total

1.  DNA extraction from soils: old bias for new microbial diversity analysis methods.

Authors:  F Martin-Laurent; L Philippot; S Hallet; R Chaussod; J C Germon; G Soulas; G Catroux
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 4.792

2.  Critical evaluation of two primers commonly used for amplification of bacterial 16S rRNA genes.

Authors:  Jeremy A Frank; Claudia I Reich; Shobha Sharma; Jon S Weisbaum; Brenda A Wilson; Gary J Olsen
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2008-02-22       Impact factor: 4.792

Review 3.  A renaissance for the pioneering 16S rRNA gene.

Authors:  Susannah G Tringe; Philip Hugenholtz
Journal:  Curr Opin Microbiol       Date:  2008-10-08       Impact factor: 7.934

4.  Analysis of the microbiome: Advantages of whole genome shotgun versus 16S amplicon sequencing.

Authors:  Ravi Ranjan; Asha Rani; Ahmed Metwally; Halvor S McGee; David L Perkins
Journal:  Biochem Biophys Res Commun       Date:  2015-12-22       Impact factor: 3.575

5.  Evaluation of general 16S ribosomal RNA gene PCR primers for classical and next-generation sequencing-based diversity studies.

Authors:  Anna Klindworth; Elmar Pruesse; Timmy Schweer; Jörg Peplies; Christian Quast; Matthias Horn; Frank Oliver Glöckner
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2012-08-28       Impact factor: 16.971

6.  Assessing the accuracy of quantitative molecular microbial profiling.

Authors:  Denise M O'Sullivan; Thomas Laver; Sasithon Temisak; Nicholas Redshaw; Kathryn A Harris; Carole A Foy; David J Studholme; Jim F Huggett
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2014-11-21       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 7.  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

8.  How conserved are the conserved 16S-rRNA regions?

Authors:  Marcel Martinez-Porchas; Enrique Villalpando-Canchola; Luis Enrique Ortiz Suarez; Francisco Vargas-Albores
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2017-02-28       Impact factor: 2.984

9.  Identification of Cultivable Bacteria from Tropical Marine Sponges and Their Biotechnological Potentials.

Authors:  Tan Suet May Amelia; Al-Ashraf Abdullah Amirul; Jasnizat Saidin; Kesaven Bhubalan
Journal:  Trop Life Sci Res       Date:  2018-07-06

10.  PCR biases distort bacterial and archaeal community structure in pyrosequencing datasets.

Authors:  Ameet J Pinto; Lutgarde Raskin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Multi-Omics Strategies for Investigating the Microbiome in Toxicology Research.

Authors:  Ethan W Morgan; Gary H Perdew; Andrew D Patterson
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2022-05-26       Impact factor: 4.109

Review 2.  Metrological framework to support accurate, reliable, and reproducible nucleic acid measurements.

Authors:  Mojca Milavec; Megan H Cleveland; Young-Kyung Bae; Robert I Wielgosz; Maxim Vonsky; Jim F Huggett
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2021-11-04       Impact factor: 4.142

3.  Characterization and Demonstration of Mock Communities as Control Reagents for Accurate Human Microbiome Community Measurements.

Authors:  Dieter M Tourlousse; Koji Narita; Takamasa Miura; Akiko Ohashi; Masami Matsuda; Yoshifumi Ohyama; Mamiko Shimamura; Masataka Furukawa; Ken Kasahara; Keishi Kameyama; Sakae Saito; Maki Goto; Ritsuko Shimizu; Riko Mishima; Jiro Nakayama; Koji Hosomi; Jun Kunisawa; Jun Terauchi; Yuji Sekiguchi; Hiroko Kawasaki
Journal:  Microbiol Spectr       Date:  2022-03-02

Review 4.  Intestinal Microbiota: The Driving Force behind Advances in Cancer Immunotherapy.

Authors:  Zhujiang Dai; Jihong Fu; Xiang Peng; Dong Tang; Jinglue Song
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-09-30       Impact factor: 6.575

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.