• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

粪便微生物组组成的宏基因组分析中的差异需要一种标准化的操作方法。

Variation in the metagenomic analysis of fecal microbiome composition calls for a standardized operating approach.

作者信息

Xu Zhilu, Yeoh Yun Kit, Tun Hein M, Fei Na, Zhang Jingwan, Morrison Mark, Kamm Michael A, Yu Jun, Chan Francis Ka Leung, Ng Siew C

机构信息

Microbiota I-Center (MagIC), Hong Kong SAR, China.

Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.

出版信息

Microbiol Spectr. 2024 Oct 30;12(12):e0151624. doi: 10.1128/spectrum.01516-24.

DOI:10.1128/spectrum.01516-24
PMID:39475247
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11619352/
Abstract

The reproducibility in microbiome studies is limited due to the lack of one gold-standard operating procedure. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of protocol variations on microbiome composition using metagenomic data sets from a single center. We assessed the variation in a data set consisted of 2,722 subjects, including 9 subcohorts harboring healthy subjects and patients with various disorders, such as inflammatory bowel disease, colorectal cancer, and type 2 diabetes. Two different DNA extraction kits, with or without lyticase, and two sample storage methods were compared. Our results indicated that DNA extraction had the largest impact on gut microbiota diversity among all host factors and sample operating procedures. Healthy subjects matched by age, body mass index, and sample operating methods exhibited reduced, yet significant differences (PERMANOVA, < 0.05) in gut microbiota composition across studies. The variations contributed by DNA extraction were primarily driven by different recovery efficiency of gram-positive bacteria, e.g., phyla Firmicutes and Actinobacteria. This was further confirmed by a parallel comparison of fecal samples from five healthy subjects and a standard mock community. In addition, the DNA extraction method influenced DNA biomass, quality, and the detection of specific lineage-associated diseases. Sample operating approach and batch effects should be considered for cohorts with large sample size or longitudinal cohorts to ensure that source data were appropriately generated and analyzed. Comparison between samples processed with inconsistent methods should be dealt with caution. This study will promote the establishment of a sample operating standard to enhance our understanding of microbiome and translating in clinical practice.IMPORTANCEThe reproducibility of human gut microbiome studies has been suboptimal across cohorts and study design choices. One possible reason for the disagreement is the introduction of systemic biases due to differences in methodologies. In our study, we utilized microbial metagenomic data sets from 2,722 fecal samples generated from a single research center to examine the extent to which sample storage and DNA extraction influence the quantification of microbial composition and compared this variable with other sources of technical and biological variation. Our research highlights the impact of DNA extraction methods when analyzing microbiome data and suggests that the microbiome profile may be influenced by differences in the extraction efficiency of bacterial species. With metagenomics sequencing being increasingly used in clinical biology, our findings provide insight into the challenges using metagenomics sequencing in clinical diagnostics, where the detection of certain species and its abundance relative to a "healthy reference" is key.

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d2e4/11619352/cf39056dd7d5/spectrum.01516-24.f004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d2e4/11619352/e3239e570ed2/spectrum.01516-24.f001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d2e4/11619352/d36ad3d2fa49/spectrum.01516-24.f002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d2e4/11619352/6ee7a428ce51/spectrum.01516-24.f003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d2e4/11619352/cf39056dd7d5/spectrum.01516-24.f004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d2e4/11619352/e3239e570ed2/spectrum.01516-24.f001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d2e4/11619352/d36ad3d2fa49/spectrum.01516-24.f002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d2e4/11619352/6ee7a428ce51/spectrum.01516-24.f003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d2e4/11619352/cf39056dd7d5/spectrum.01516-24.f004.jpg
摘要

由于缺乏一种金标准操作程序,微生物组研究的可重复性受到限制。本研究的目的是利用来自单一中心的宏基因组数据集,研究方案差异对微生物组组成的影响。我们评估了一个由2722名受试者组成的数据集中的差异,其中包括9个亚组,包含健康受试者以及患有各种疾病的患者,如炎症性肠病、结直肠癌和2型糖尿病。比较了两种不同的DNA提取试剂盒(含或不含溶菌酶)以及两种样本储存方法。我们的结果表明,在所有宿主因素和样本操作程序中,DNA提取对肠道微生物群多样性的影响最大。在不同研究中,年龄、体重指数和样本操作方法相匹配的健康受试者,其肠道微生物群组成表现出降低但仍显著的差异(PERMANOVA,P<0.05)。DNA提取造成的差异主要由革兰氏阳性菌(如厚壁菌门和放线菌门)的不同回收效率驱动。对5名健康受试者的粪便样本和一个标准模拟群落进行的平行比较进一步证实了这一点。此外,DNA提取方法会影响DNA生物量、质量以及特定谱系相关疾病的检测。对于大样本量队列或纵向队列,应考虑样本操作方法和批次效应,以确保源数据得到适当生成和分析。对用不一致方法处理的样本进行比较时应谨慎。本研究将促进样本操作标准的建立,以增进我们对微生物组的理解并转化应用于临床实践。

重要性

跨队列和研究设计选择时,人类肠道微生物组研究的可重复性一直不太理想。分歧的一个可能原因是由于方法差异引入了系统性偏差。在我们的研究中,我们利用了来自单一研究中心的2722份粪便样本的微生物宏基因组数据集,来研究样本储存和DNA提取在多大程度上影响微生物组成的量化,并将这一变量与其他技术和生物学变异来源进行比较。我们的研究突出了DNA提取方法在分析微生物组数据时的影响,并表明微生物组谱可能受到细菌物种提取效率差异的影响。随着宏基因组测序在临床生物学中的应用越来越广泛,我们的发现为临床诊断中使用宏基因组测序所面临的挑战提供了见解,其中检测某些物种及其相对于“健康参考”的丰度是关键。

相似文献

1
Variation in the metagenomic analysis of fecal microbiome composition calls for a standardized operating approach.粪便微生物组组成的宏基因组分析中的差异需要一种标准化的操作方法。
Microbiol Spectr. 2024 Oct 30;12(12):e0151624. doi: 10.1128/spectrum.01516-24.
2
High-throughput DNA extraction strategy for fecal microbiome studies.高通量粪便微生物组研究的 DNA 提取策略。
Microbiol Spectr. 2024 Jun 4;12(6):e0293223. doi: 10.1128/spectrum.02932-23. Epub 2024 May 15.
3
Reliability of a participant-friendly fecal collection method for microbiome analyses: a step towards large sample size investigation.一种方便参与者的粪便收集方法用于微生物组分析的可靠性:迈向大样本量研究的一步。
BMC Microbiol. 2018 Sep 6;18(1):110. doi: 10.1186/s12866-018-1249-x.
4
Choice of DNA extraction method affects stool microbiome recovery and subsequent phenotypic association analyses.DNA 提取方法的选择会影响粪便微生物组的恢复及其后续表型关联分析。
Sci Rep. 2024 Feb 16;14(1):3911. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-54353-w.
5
Impact of microbiological molecular methodologies on adaptive sampling using nanopore sequencing in metagenomic studies.微生物分子方法对宏基因组研究中使用纳米孔测序进行适应性采样的影响。
Environ Microbiome. 2025 May 5;20(1):47. doi: 10.1186/s40793-025-00704-7.
6
Towards standards for human fecal sample processing in metagenomic studies.迈向宏基因组研究中人粪便样本处理的标准。
Nat Biotechnol. 2017 Nov;35(11):1069-1076. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3960. Epub 2017 Oct 2.
7
Library Preparation and Sequencing Platform Introduce Bias in Metagenomic-Based Characterizations of Microbiomes.文库制备和测序平台会导致基于宏基因组学的微生物组特征分析产生偏差。
Microbiol Spectr. 2022 Apr 27;10(2):e0009022. doi: 10.1128/spectrum.00090-22. Epub 2022 Mar 15.
8
The standardisation of the approach to metagenomic human gut analysis: from sample collection to microbiome profiling.人类肠道宏基因组分析方法的标准化:从样本采集到微生物组分析。
Sci Rep. 2022 May 19;12(1):8470. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-12037-3.
9
Impact of DNA Extraction Methods on Gut Microbiome Profiles: A Comparative Metagenomic Study.DNA提取方法对肠道微生物组图谱的影响:一项比较宏基因组学研究。
Phenomics. 2025 Feb 20;5(1):76-90. doi: 10.1007/s43657-025-00232-x. eCollection 2025 Feb.
10
Assessment of fecal DNA extraction protocols for metagenomic studies.评估用于宏基因组研究的粪便 DNA 提取方案。
Gigascience. 2020 Jul 1;9(7). doi: 10.1093/gigascience/giaa071.

引用本文的文献

1
Fecal microbiomes from screening sampling tubes are stable despite varying sampling and storage conditions.尽管采样和储存条件不同,但筛查采样管中的粪便微生物群是稳定的。
Sci Rep. 2025 Jul 24;15(1):26951. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-12506-5.
2
Effect of Omeprazole on Esophageal Microbiota in Dogs Detected Using a Minimally Invasive Sampling Method.使用微创采样方法检测奥美拉唑对犬食管微生物群的影响。
J Vet Intern Med. 2025 Mar-Apr;39(2):e70029. doi: 10.1111/jvim.70029.

本文引用的文献

1
Human microbiome myths and misconceptions.人类微生物组的误区和误解。
Nat Microbiol. 2023 Aug;8(8):1392-1396. doi: 10.1038/s41564-023-01426-7. Epub 2023 Jul 31.
2
Comparison of DNA extraction methods for 16S rRNA gene sequencing in the analysis of the human gut microbiome.比较用于人类肠道微生物组分析的 16S rRNA 基因测序的 DNA 提取方法。
Sci Rep. 2023 Jun 24;13(1):10279. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-33959-6.
3
The microbiome-gut-brain axis in Parkinson disease - from basic research to the clinic.帕金森病的微生物组-肠道-大脑轴:从基础研究到临床。
Nat Rev Neurol. 2022 Aug;18(8):476-495. doi: 10.1038/s41582-022-00681-2. Epub 2022 Jun 24.
4
Multi-omics analyses of the ulcerative colitis gut microbiome link Bacteroides vulgatus proteases with disease severity.溃疡性结肠炎肠道微生物组的多组学分析将脆弱拟杆菌蛋白酶与疾病严重程度联系起来。
Nat Microbiol. 2022 Feb;7(2):262-276. doi: 10.1038/s41564-021-01050-3. Epub 2022 Jan 27.
5
Reporting guidelines for human microbiome research: the STORMS checklist.人类微生物组研究报告指南:STORMS 清单。
Nat Med. 2021 Nov;27(11):1885-1892. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01552-x. Epub 2021 Nov 17.
6
Underdevelopment of the gut microbiota and bacteria species as non-invasive markers of prediction in children with autism spectrum disorder.肠道微生物组和细菌种类发育不良作为自闭症谱系障碍儿童预测的非侵入性标志物。
Gut. 2022 May;71(5):910-918. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-324015. Epub 2021 Jul 26.
7
Alterations in the Gut Virome in Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.肥胖症和 2 型糖尿病中肠道病毒组的改变。
Gastroenterology. 2021 Oct;161(4):1257-1269.e13. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.06.056. Epub 2021 Jun 25.
8
Identifying biases and their potential solutions in human microbiome studies.鉴定人类微生物组研究中的偏差及其潜在解决方案。
Microbiome. 2021 May 18;9(1):113. doi: 10.1186/s40168-021-01059-0.
9
Gut microbiota composition reflects disease severity and dysfunctional immune responses in patients with COVID-19.肠道微生物群落组成反映了 COVID-19 患者的疾病严重程度和功能失调的免疫反应。
Gut. 2021 Apr;70(4):698-706. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-323020. Epub 2021 Jan 11.
10
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) and the Microbiome-Searching the Crime Scene for Clues.炎症性肠病 (IBD) 与微生物组——在犯罪现场寻找线索。
Gastroenterology. 2021 Jan;160(2):524-537. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.09.056. Epub 2020 Nov 27.