Cargando…

Comparing genomes recovered from time-series metagenomes using long- and short-read sequencing technologies

BACKGROUND: Over the past years, sequencing technologies have expanded our ability to examine novel microbial metabolisms and diversity previously obscured by isolation approaches. Long-read sequencing promises to revolutionize the metagenomic field and recover less fragmented genomes from environme...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Orellana, Luis H., Krüger, Karen, Sidhu, Chandni, Amann, Rudolf
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10182627/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37179340
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40168-023-01557-3
_version_ 1785041794289893376
author Orellana, Luis H.
Krüger, Karen
Sidhu, Chandni
Amann, Rudolf
author_facet Orellana, Luis H.
Krüger, Karen
Sidhu, Chandni
Amann, Rudolf
author_sort Orellana, Luis H.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Over the past years, sequencing technologies have expanded our ability to examine novel microbial metabolisms and diversity previously obscured by isolation approaches. Long-read sequencing promises to revolutionize the metagenomic field and recover less fragmented genomes from environmental samples. Nonetheless, how to best benefit from long-read sequencing and whether long-read sequencing can provide recovered genomes of similar characteristics as short-read approaches remains unclear. RESULTS: We recovered metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) from the free-living fraction at four-time points during a spring bloom in the North Sea. The taxonomic composition of all MAGs recovered was comparable between technologies. However, differences consisted of higher sequencing depth for contigs and higher genome population diversity in short-read compared to long-read metagenomes. When pairing population genomes recovered from both sequencing approaches that shared ≥ 99% average nucleotide identity, long-read MAGs were composed of fewer contigs, a higher N50, and a higher number of predicted genes when compared to short-read MAGs. Moreover, 88% of the total long-read MAGs carried a 16S rRNA gene compared to only 23% of MAGs recovered from short-read metagenomes. Relative abundances for population genomes recovered using both technologies were similar, although disagreements were observed for high and low GC content MAGs. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight that short-read technologies recovered more MAGs and a higher number of species than long-read due to an overall higher sequencing depth. Long-read samples produced higher quality MAGs and similar species composition compared to short-read sequencing. Differences in the GC content recovered by each sequencing technology resulted in divergences in the diversity recovered and relative abundance of MAGs within the GC content boundaries. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40168-023-01557-3.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10182627
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101826272023-05-14 Comparing genomes recovered from time-series metagenomes using long- and short-read sequencing technologies Orellana, Luis H. Krüger, Karen Sidhu, Chandni Amann, Rudolf Microbiome Brief Report BACKGROUND: Over the past years, sequencing technologies have expanded our ability to examine novel microbial metabolisms and diversity previously obscured by isolation approaches. Long-read sequencing promises to revolutionize the metagenomic field and recover less fragmented genomes from environmental samples. Nonetheless, how to best benefit from long-read sequencing and whether long-read sequencing can provide recovered genomes of similar characteristics as short-read approaches remains unclear. RESULTS: We recovered metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) from the free-living fraction at four-time points during a spring bloom in the North Sea. The taxonomic composition of all MAGs recovered was comparable between technologies. However, differences consisted of higher sequencing depth for contigs and higher genome population diversity in short-read compared to long-read metagenomes. When pairing population genomes recovered from both sequencing approaches that shared ≥ 99% average nucleotide identity, long-read MAGs were composed of fewer contigs, a higher N50, and a higher number of predicted genes when compared to short-read MAGs. Moreover, 88% of the total long-read MAGs carried a 16S rRNA gene compared to only 23% of MAGs recovered from short-read metagenomes. Relative abundances for population genomes recovered using both technologies were similar, although disagreements were observed for high and low GC content MAGs. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight that short-read technologies recovered more MAGs and a higher number of species than long-read due to an overall higher sequencing depth. Long-read samples produced higher quality MAGs and similar species composition compared to short-read sequencing. Differences in the GC content recovered by each sequencing technology resulted in divergences in the diversity recovered and relative abundance of MAGs within the GC content boundaries. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40168-023-01557-3. BioMed Central 2023-05-13 /pmc/articles/PMC10182627/ /pubmed/37179340 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40168-023-01557-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Brief Report
Orellana, Luis H.
Krüger, Karen
Sidhu, Chandni
Amann, Rudolf
Comparing genomes recovered from time-series metagenomes using long- and short-read sequencing technologies
title Comparing genomes recovered from time-series metagenomes using long- and short-read sequencing technologies
title_full Comparing genomes recovered from time-series metagenomes using long- and short-read sequencing technologies
title_fullStr Comparing genomes recovered from time-series metagenomes using long- and short-read sequencing technologies
title_full_unstemmed Comparing genomes recovered from time-series metagenomes using long- and short-read sequencing technologies
title_short Comparing genomes recovered from time-series metagenomes using long- and short-read sequencing technologies
title_sort comparing genomes recovered from time-series metagenomes using long- and short-read sequencing technologies
topic Brief Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10182627/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37179340
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40168-023-01557-3
work_keys_str_mv AT orellanaluish comparinggenomesrecoveredfromtimeseriesmetagenomesusinglongandshortreadsequencingtechnologies
AT krugerkaren comparinggenomesrecoveredfromtimeseriesmetagenomesusinglongandshortreadsequencingtechnologies
AT sidhuchandni comparinggenomesrecoveredfromtimeseriesmetagenomesusinglongandshortreadsequencingtechnologies
AT amannrudolf comparinggenomesrecoveredfromtimeseriesmetagenomesusinglongandshortreadsequencingtechnologies