Joseph F Pierre1, Greg J Phillips2, Lawrance C Chandra2, Danielle N Rendina3, Neena F Thomas-Gosain4, Gabriele R Lubach3, Mark Lyte2, Christopher L Coe3, Ankush Gosain5. 1. Department of Pediatrics, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee; Children's Foundation Research Institute, Le Bonheur Children's Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee. Electronic address: jpierre1@uthsc.edu. 2. Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Preventive Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. 3. Harlow Center, Department. of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. 4. Department. of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee. 5. Department of Pediatrics, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee; Children's Foundation Research Institute, Le Bonheur Children's Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee; Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee. Electronic address: agosain@uthsc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Microbiome research has expanded to consider contributions of microbial kingdoms beyond bacteria, including fungi (i.e., the mycobiome). However, optimal specimen handling protocols are varied, including uncertainty of how enzymes utilized to facilitate fungal DNA recovery may interfere with bacterial microbiome sequencing from the same samples. METHODS: With Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approval, fecal samples were obtained from 20 rhesus macaques (10 males, 10 females; Macaca mulatta). DNA was extracted using commercially available kits, with or without lyticase enzyme treatment. 16S ribosomal RNA (bacterial) and Internal Transcribed Spacer (ITS; fungal) sequencing was performed on the Illumina MiSeq platform. Bioinformatics analysis was performed using Qiime and Calypso. RESULTS: Inclusion of lyticase in the sample preparation pipeline significantly increased usable fungal ITS reads, community alpha diversity, and enhanced detection of numerous fungal genera that were otherwise poorly or not detected in primate fecal samples. Bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA amplicons obtained from library preparation were statistically unchanged by the presence of lyticase. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate inclusion of the enzyme lyticase for fungal cell wall digestion markedly enhances mycobiota detection while maintaining fidelity of microbiome identification and community features in non-human primates. In restricted sample volumes, as are common in limited human samples, use of single sample DNA isolation will facilitate increased rigor and controlled approaches in future work.
BACKGROUND: Microbiome research has expanded to consider contributions of microbial kingdoms beyond bacteria, including fungi (i.e., the mycobiome). However, optimal specimen handling protocols are varied, including uncertainty of how enzymes utilized to facilitate fungal DNA recovery may interfere with bacterial microbiome sequencing from the same samples. METHODS: With Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approval, fecal samples were obtained from 20 rhesus macaques (10 males, 10 females; Macaca mulatta). DNA was extracted using commercially available kits, with or without lyticase enzyme treatment. 16S ribosomal RNA (bacterial) and Internal Transcribed Spacer (ITS; fungal) sequencing was performed on the Illumina MiSeq platform. Bioinformatics analysis was performed using Qiime and Calypso. RESULTS: Inclusion of lyticase in the sample preparation pipeline significantly increased usable fungal ITS reads, community alpha diversity, and enhanced detection of numerous fungal genera that were otherwise poorly or not detected in primate fecal samples. Bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA amplicons obtained from library preparation were statistically unchanged by the presence of lyticase. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate inclusion of the enzyme lyticase for fungal cell wall digestion markedly enhances mycobiota detection while maintaining fidelity of microbiome identification and community features in non-human primates. In restricted sample volumes, as are common in limited human samples, use of single sample DNA isolation will facilitate increased rigor and controlled approaches in future work.
Authors: Christian Hoffmann; Serena Dollive; Stephanie Grunberg; Jun Chen; Hongzhe Li; Gary D Wu; James D Lewis; Frederic D Bushman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-06-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Andrea K Nash; Thomas A Auchtung; Matthew C Wong; Daniel P Smith; Jonathan R Gesell; Matthew C Ross; Christopher J Stewart; Ginger A Metcalf; Donna M Muzny; Richard A Gibbs; Nadim J Ajami; Joseph F Petrosino Journal: Microbiome Date: 2017-11-25 Impact factor: 14.650
Authors: A Lenore Ackerman; Jennifer Tash Anger; Muhammad Umair Khalique; James E Ackerman; Jie Tang; Jayoung Kim; David M Underhill; Michael R Freeman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-04-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Thomas A Auchtung; Tatiana Y Fofanova; Christopher J Stewart; Andrea K Nash; Matthew C Wong; Jonathan R Gesell; Jennifer M Auchtung; Nadim J Ajami; Joseph F Petrosino Journal: mSphere Date: 2018-03-28 Impact factor: 4.389