Ducarmon Q R, Hornung B V H, Geelen A R, Kuijper E J, Zwittink R D
Center for Microbiome Analyses and Therapeutics, Department of Medical Microbiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
Experimental Bacteriology, Department of Medical Microbiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
mSystems. 2020 Feb 11;5(1):e00547-19. doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00547-19.
When studying the microbiome using next-generation sequencing, the DNA extraction method, sequencing procedures, and bioinformatic processing are crucial to obtain reliable data. Method choice has been demonstrated to strongly affect the final biological interpretation. We assessed the performance of three DNA extraction methods and two bioinformatic pipelines for bacterial microbiota profiling through 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing, using positive and negative controls for DNA extraction and sequencing and eight different types of high- or low-biomass samples. Performance was evaluated based on quality control passing, DNA yield, richness, diversity, and compositional profiles. All DNA extraction methods retrieved the theoretical relative bacterial abundance with a maximum 3-fold change, although differences were seen between methods, and library preparation and sequencing induced little variation. Bioinformatic pipelines showed different results for observed richness, but diversity and compositional profiles were comparable. DNA extraction methods were successful for feces and oral swabs, and variation induced by DNA extraction methods was lower than intersubject (biological) variation. For low-biomass samples, a mixture of genera present in negative controls and sample-specific genera, possibly representing biological signal, were observed. We conclude that the tested bioinformatic pipelines perform equally, with pipeline-specific advantages and disadvantages. Two out of three extraction methods performed equally well, while one method was less accurate regarding retrieval of compositional profiles. Lastly, we again demonstrate the importance of including negative controls when analyzing low-bacterial-biomass samples. Method choice throughout the workflow of a microbiome study, from sample collection to DNA extraction and sequencing procedures, can greatly affect results. This study evaluated three different DNA extraction methods and two bioinformatic pipelines by including positive and negative controls and various biological specimens. By identifying an optimal combination of DNA extraction method and bioinformatic pipeline use, we hope to contribute to increased methodological consistency in microbiota studies. Our methods were applied not only to commonly studied samples for microbiota analysis, e.g., feces, but also to more rarely studied, low-biomass samples. Microbiota composition profiles of low-biomass samples (e.g., urine and tumor biopsy specimens) were not always distinguishable from negative controls, or showed partial overlap, confirming the importance of including negative controls in microbiota studies, especially when low bacterial biomass is expected.
在使用下一代测序技术研究微生物组时,DNA提取方法、测序程序和生物信息学处理对于获得可靠数据至关重要。已证明方法的选择会强烈影响最终的生物学解释。我们通过16S rRNA基因扩增子测序评估了三种DNA提取方法和两种生物信息学流程用于细菌微生物群分析的性能,在DNA提取和测序过程中使用了阳性和阴性对照以及八种不同类型的高生物量或低生物量样本。基于通过质量控制、DNA产量、丰富度、多样性和组成概况来评估性能。所有DNA提取方法均能检索到理论相对细菌丰度,最大变化为3倍,尽管不同方法之间存在差异,且文库制备和测序引起的变异很小。生物信息学流程在观察到的丰富度方面显示出不同的结果,但多样性和组成概况具有可比性。DNA提取方法在粪便和口腔拭子样本上取得了成功,并且DNA提取方法引起的变异低于个体间(生物学)变异。对于低生物量样本,观察到阴性对照中存在的属与样本特异性属的混合物,这可能代表生物学信号。我们得出结论,所测试的生物信息学流程表现相当,各有其优缺点。三种提取方法中的两种表现相当,而一种方法在检索组成概况方面不太准确。最后,我们再次证明在分析低细菌生物量样本时纳入阴性对照的重要性。从样本采集到DNA提取和测序程序,微生物组研究工作流程中的方法选择会极大地影响结果。本研究通过纳入阳性和阴性对照以及各种生物标本,评估了三种不同的DNA提取方法和两种生物信息学流程。通过确定DNA提取方法和生物信息学流程使用的最佳组合,我们希望有助于提高微生物群研究中的方法一致性。我们的方法不仅应用于微生物群分析中常用的样本,如粪便,还应用于较少研究的低生物量样本。低生物量样本(如尿液和肿瘤活检标本)的微生物群组成概况并不总是与阴性对照区分开来,或显示部分重叠,这证实了在微生物群研究中纳入阴性对照的重要性,尤其是在预期细菌生物量较低时。