Cargando…

Assessing the Accuracy of Quantitative Molecular Microbial Profiling

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 RN...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: O’Sullivan, Denise M., Laver, Thomas, Temisak, Sasithon, Redshaw, Nicholas, Harris, Kathryn A., Foy, Carole A., Studholme, David J., Huggett, Jim F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4264237/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25421243
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms151121476
_version_ 1782348699336179712
author O’Sullivan, Denise M.
Laver, Thomas
Temisak, Sasithon
Redshaw, Nicholas
Harris, Kathryn A.
Foy, Carole A.
Studholme, David J.
Huggett, Jim F.
author_facet O’Sullivan, Denise M.
Laver, Thomas
Temisak, Sasithon
Redshaw, Nicholas
Harris, Kathryn A.
Foy, Carole A.
Studholme, David J.
Huggett, Jim F.
author_sort O’Sullivan, Denise M.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4264237
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42642372014-12-12 Assessing the Accuracy of Quantitative Molecular Microbial Profiling O’Sullivan, Denise M. Laver, Thomas Temisak, Sasithon Redshaw, Nicholas Harris, Kathryn A. Foy, Carole A. Studholme, David J. Huggett, Jim F. Int J Mol Sci Article 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. MDPI 2014-11-21 /pmc/articles/PMC4264237/ /pubmed/25421243 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms151121476 Text en © 2014 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
O’Sullivan, Denise M.
Laver, Thomas
Temisak, Sasithon
Redshaw, Nicholas
Harris, Kathryn A.
Foy, Carole A.
Studholme, David J.
Huggett, Jim F.
Assessing the Accuracy of Quantitative Molecular Microbial Profiling
title Assessing the Accuracy of Quantitative Molecular Microbial Profiling
title_full Assessing the Accuracy of Quantitative Molecular Microbial Profiling
title_fullStr Assessing the Accuracy of Quantitative Molecular Microbial Profiling
title_full_unstemmed Assessing the Accuracy of Quantitative Molecular Microbial Profiling
title_short Assessing the Accuracy of Quantitative Molecular Microbial Profiling
title_sort assessing the accuracy of quantitative molecular microbial profiling
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4264237/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25421243
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms151121476
work_keys_str_mv AT osullivandenisem assessingtheaccuracyofquantitativemolecularmicrobialprofiling
AT laverthomas assessingtheaccuracyofquantitativemolecularmicrobialprofiling
AT temisaksasithon assessingtheaccuracyofquantitativemolecularmicrobialprofiling
AT redshawnicholas assessingtheaccuracyofquantitativemolecularmicrobialprofiling
AT harriskathryna assessingtheaccuracyofquantitativemolecularmicrobialprofiling
AT foycarolea assessingtheaccuracyofquantitativemolecularmicrobialprofiling
AT studholmedavidj assessingtheaccuracyofquantitativemolecularmicrobialprofiling
AT huggettjimf assessingtheaccuracyofquantitativemolecularmicrobialprofiling