O'Sullivan Denise M, Laver Thomas, Temisak Sasithon, Redshaw Nicholas, Harris Kathryn A, Foy Carole A, Studholme David J, Huggett Jim F
Molecular Biology, LGC Ltd., Queens Road, Teddington TW11 0LY, UK.
Biosciences, University of Exeter, Geoffrey Pope Building, Stocker Road, Exeter EX4 4QD, UK.
Int J Mol Sci. 2014 Nov 21;15(11):21476-91. doi: 10.3390/ijms151121476.
The application of high-throughput sequencing in profiling microbial communities is providing an unprecedented ability to investigate microbiomes. Such studies typically apply one of two methods: amplicon sequencing using PCR to target a conserved orthologous sequence (typically the 16S ribosomal RNA gene) or whole (meta)genome sequencing (WGS). Both methods have been used to catalog the microbial taxa present in a sample and quantify their respective abundances. However, a comparison of the inherent precision or bias of the different sequencing approaches has not been performed. We previously developed a metagenomic control material (MCM) to investigate error when performing different sequencing strategies. Amplicon sequencing using four different primer strategies and two 16S rRNA regions was examined (Roche 454 Junior) and compared to WGS (Illumina HiSeq). All sequencing methods generally performed comparably and in good agreement with organism specific digital PCR (dPCR); WGS notably demonstrated very high precision. Where discrepancies between relative abundances occurred they tended to differ by less than twofold. Our findings suggest that when alternative sequencing approaches are used for microbial molecular profiling they can perform with good reproducibility, but care should be taken when comparing small differences between distinct methods. This work provides a foundation for future work comparing relative differences between samples and the impact of extraction methods. We also highlight the value of control materials when conducting microbial profiling studies to benchmark methods and set appropriate thresholds.
高通量测序在微生物群落分析中的应用为研究微生物组提供了前所未有的能力。此类研究通常采用两种方法之一:使用聚合酶链反应(PCR)靶向保守直系同源序列(通常是16S核糖体RNA基因)进行扩增子测序,或进行全(宏)基因组测序(WGS)。这两种方法都已用于对样本中存在的微生物分类群进行编目并量化它们各自的丰度。然而,尚未对不同测序方法的内在精度或偏差进行比较。我们之前开发了一种宏基因组对照材料(MCM),以研究执行不同测序策略时的误差。我们检测了使用四种不同引物策略和两个16S rRNA区域的扩增子测序(罗氏454 Junior),并将其与WGS(Illumina HiSeq)进行比较。所有测序方法的总体表现大致相当,并且与针对特定生物体的数字PCR(dPCR)结果高度一致;WGS尤其显示出非常高的精度。当相对丰度出现差异时,它们之间的差异往往小于两倍。我们的研究结果表明,当使用替代测序方法进行微生物分子分析时,它们可以具有良好的可重复性,但在比较不同方法之间的微小差异时应谨慎。这项工作为未来比较样本之间的相对差异以及提取方法的影响奠定了基础。我们还强调了在进行微生物分析研究以对方法进行基准测试并设定适当阈值时对照材料的价值。