Cargando…

Comparison of methods for fecal microbiome biospecimen collection

BACKGROUND: Effective means are needed to efficiently collect fecal samples for microbiome analysis in large-scale epidemiological studies. Using twenty-four fecal aliquots prepared from three healthy individuals, we compared the following four fecal sample collection methods for assessment of human...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dominianni, Christine, Wu, Jing, Hayes, Richard B, Ahn, Jiyoung
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4005852/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24758293
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-14-103
_version_ 1782314162668437504
author Dominianni, Christine
Wu, Jing
Hayes, Richard B
Ahn, Jiyoung
author_facet Dominianni, Christine
Wu, Jing
Hayes, Richard B
Ahn, Jiyoung
author_sort Dominianni, Christine
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Effective means are needed to efficiently collect fecal samples for microbiome analysis in large-scale epidemiological studies. Using twenty-four fecal aliquots prepared from three healthy individuals, we compared the following four fecal sample collection methods for assessment of human gut microbiome: 1) fecal occult blood test cards, held at room temperature for three days, 2) Eppendorf tubes, at room temperature for three days, 3) Eppendorf tubes with RNAlater, at room temperature, and 4) as controls, samples immediately frozen at −80°C. The 24 samples were assayed by 16S rRNA gene sequencing to compare overall microbiome structure and taxon distributions according to collection method. RESULTS: Storing fecal occult blood test card samples at room temperature for three days did not affect total DNA purity and relative 16S rRNA bacterial gene contents, compared with fresh frozen collection. Overall microbiome structure, based on phylogenetic UniFrac index, differed significantly by subject (p = 0.001), but microbiome structure (p = 0.497) and relative abundance of major microbial taxa (phyla) (p > 0.05) did not differ significantly by collection method. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that low-cost fecal occult blood test card collection may be a feasible means of sample collection for fecal microbiome assessment in large-scale population-based studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4005852
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40058522014-05-02 Comparison of methods for fecal microbiome biospecimen collection Dominianni, Christine Wu, Jing Hayes, Richard B Ahn, Jiyoung BMC Microbiol Methodology Article BACKGROUND: Effective means are needed to efficiently collect fecal samples for microbiome analysis in large-scale epidemiological studies. Using twenty-four fecal aliquots prepared from three healthy individuals, we compared the following four fecal sample collection methods for assessment of human gut microbiome: 1) fecal occult blood test cards, held at room temperature for three days, 2) Eppendorf tubes, at room temperature for three days, 3) Eppendorf tubes with RNAlater, at room temperature, and 4) as controls, samples immediately frozen at −80°C. The 24 samples were assayed by 16S rRNA gene sequencing to compare overall microbiome structure and taxon distributions according to collection method. RESULTS: Storing fecal occult blood test card samples at room temperature for three days did not affect total DNA purity and relative 16S rRNA bacterial gene contents, compared with fresh frozen collection. Overall microbiome structure, based on phylogenetic UniFrac index, differed significantly by subject (p = 0.001), but microbiome structure (p = 0.497) and relative abundance of major microbial taxa (phyla) (p > 0.05) did not differ significantly by collection method. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that low-cost fecal occult blood test card collection may be a feasible means of sample collection for fecal microbiome assessment in large-scale population-based studies. BioMed Central 2014-04-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4005852/ /pubmed/24758293 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-14-103 Text en Copyright © 2014 Dominianni et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Methodology Article
Dominianni, Christine
Wu, Jing
Hayes, Richard B
Ahn, Jiyoung
Comparison of methods for fecal microbiome biospecimen collection
title Comparison of methods for fecal microbiome biospecimen collection
title_full Comparison of methods for fecal microbiome biospecimen collection
title_fullStr Comparison of methods for fecal microbiome biospecimen collection
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of methods for fecal microbiome biospecimen collection
title_short Comparison of methods for fecal microbiome biospecimen collection
title_sort comparison of methods for fecal microbiome biospecimen collection
topic Methodology Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4005852/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24758293
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-14-103
work_keys_str_mv AT dominiannichristine comparisonofmethodsforfecalmicrobiomebiospecimencollection
AT wujing comparisonofmethodsforfecalmicrobiomebiospecimencollection
AT hayesrichardb comparisonofmethodsforfecalmicrobiomebiospecimencollection
AT ahnjiyoung comparisonofmethodsforfecalmicrobiomebiospecimencollection