Cargando…

A Comparison between Transcriptome Sequencing and 16S Metagenomics for Detection of Bacterial Pathogens in Wildlife

BACKGROUND: Rodents are major reservoirs of pathogens responsible for numerous zoonotic diseases in humans and livestock. Assessing their microbial diversity at both the individual and population level is crucial for monitoring endemic infections and revealing microbial association patterns within r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Razzauti, Maria, Galan, Maxime, Bernard, Maria, Maman, Sarah, Klopp, Christophe, Charbonnel, Nathalie, Vayssier-Taussat, Muriel, Eloit, Marc, Cosson, Jean-François
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4540314/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26284930
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0003929
_version_ 1782386232368562176
author Razzauti, Maria
Galan, Maxime
Bernard, Maria
Maman, Sarah
Klopp, Christophe
Charbonnel, Nathalie
Vayssier-Taussat, Muriel
Eloit, Marc
Cosson, Jean-François
author_facet Razzauti, Maria
Galan, Maxime
Bernard, Maria
Maman, Sarah
Klopp, Christophe
Charbonnel, Nathalie
Vayssier-Taussat, Muriel
Eloit, Marc
Cosson, Jean-François
author_sort Razzauti, Maria
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Rodents are major reservoirs of pathogens responsible for numerous zoonotic diseases in humans and livestock. Assessing their microbial diversity at both the individual and population level is crucial for monitoring endemic infections and revealing microbial association patterns within reservoirs. Recently, NGS approaches have been employed to characterize microbial communities of different ecosystems. Yet, their relative efficacy has not been assessed. Here, we compared two NGS approaches, RNA-Sequencing (RNA-Seq) and 16S-metagenomics, assessing their ability to survey neglected zoonotic bacteria in rodent populations. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We first extracted nucleic acids from the spleens of 190 voles collected in France. RNA extracts were pooled, randomly retro-transcribed, then RNA-Seq was performed using HiSeq. Assembled bacterial sequences were assigned to the closest taxon registered in GenBank. DNA extracts were analyzed via a 16S-metagenomics approach using two sequencers: the 454 GS-FLX and the MiSeq. The V4 region of the gene coding for 16S rRNA was amplified for each sample using barcoded universal primers. Amplicons were multiplexed and processed on the distinct sequencers. The resulting datasets were de-multiplexed, and each read was processed through a pipeline to be taxonomically classified using the Ribosomal Database Project. Altogether, 45 pathogenic bacterial genera were detected. The bacteria identified by RNA-Seq were comparable to those detected by 16S-metagenomics approach processed with MiSeq (16S-MiSeq). In contrast, 21 of these pathogens went unnoticed when the 16S-metagenomics approach was processed via 454-pyrosequencing (16S-454). In addition, the 16S-metagenomics approaches revealed a high level of coinfection in bank voles. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: We concluded that RNA-Seq and 16S-MiSeq are equally sensitive in detecting bacteria. Although only the 16S-MiSeq method enabled identification of bacteria in each individual reservoir, with subsequent derivation of bacterial prevalence in host populations, and generation of intra-reservoir patterns of bacterial interactions. Lastly, the number of bacterial reads obtained with the 16S-MiSeq could be a good proxy for bacterial prevalence.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4540314
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45403142015-08-24 A Comparison between Transcriptome Sequencing and 16S Metagenomics for Detection of Bacterial Pathogens in Wildlife Razzauti, Maria Galan, Maxime Bernard, Maria Maman, Sarah Klopp, Christophe Charbonnel, Nathalie Vayssier-Taussat, Muriel Eloit, Marc Cosson, Jean-François PLoS Negl Trop Dis Research Article BACKGROUND: Rodents are major reservoirs of pathogens responsible for numerous zoonotic diseases in humans and livestock. Assessing their microbial diversity at both the individual and population level is crucial for monitoring endemic infections and revealing microbial association patterns within reservoirs. Recently, NGS approaches have been employed to characterize microbial communities of different ecosystems. Yet, their relative efficacy has not been assessed. Here, we compared two NGS approaches, RNA-Sequencing (RNA-Seq) and 16S-metagenomics, assessing their ability to survey neglected zoonotic bacteria in rodent populations. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We first extracted nucleic acids from the spleens of 190 voles collected in France. RNA extracts were pooled, randomly retro-transcribed, then RNA-Seq was performed using HiSeq. Assembled bacterial sequences were assigned to the closest taxon registered in GenBank. DNA extracts were analyzed via a 16S-metagenomics approach using two sequencers: the 454 GS-FLX and the MiSeq. The V4 region of the gene coding for 16S rRNA was amplified for each sample using barcoded universal primers. Amplicons were multiplexed and processed on the distinct sequencers. The resulting datasets were de-multiplexed, and each read was processed through a pipeline to be taxonomically classified using the Ribosomal Database Project. Altogether, 45 pathogenic bacterial genera were detected. The bacteria identified by RNA-Seq were comparable to those detected by 16S-metagenomics approach processed with MiSeq (16S-MiSeq). In contrast, 21 of these pathogens went unnoticed when the 16S-metagenomics approach was processed via 454-pyrosequencing (16S-454). In addition, the 16S-metagenomics approaches revealed a high level of coinfection in bank voles. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: We concluded that RNA-Seq and 16S-MiSeq are equally sensitive in detecting bacteria. Although only the 16S-MiSeq method enabled identification of bacteria in each individual reservoir, with subsequent derivation of bacterial prevalence in host populations, and generation of intra-reservoir patterns of bacterial interactions. Lastly, the number of bacterial reads obtained with the 16S-MiSeq could be a good proxy for bacterial prevalence. Public Library of Science 2015-08-18 /pmc/articles/PMC4540314/ /pubmed/26284930 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0003929 Text en © 2015 Razzauti et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Razzauti, Maria
Galan, Maxime
Bernard, Maria
Maman, Sarah
Klopp, Christophe
Charbonnel, Nathalie
Vayssier-Taussat, Muriel
Eloit, Marc
Cosson, Jean-François
A Comparison between Transcriptome Sequencing and 16S Metagenomics for Detection of Bacterial Pathogens in Wildlife
title A Comparison between Transcriptome Sequencing and 16S Metagenomics for Detection of Bacterial Pathogens in Wildlife
title_full A Comparison between Transcriptome Sequencing and 16S Metagenomics for Detection of Bacterial Pathogens in Wildlife
title_fullStr A Comparison between Transcriptome Sequencing and 16S Metagenomics for Detection of Bacterial Pathogens in Wildlife
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison between Transcriptome Sequencing and 16S Metagenomics for Detection of Bacterial Pathogens in Wildlife
title_short A Comparison between Transcriptome Sequencing and 16S Metagenomics for Detection of Bacterial Pathogens in Wildlife
title_sort comparison between transcriptome sequencing and 16s metagenomics for detection of bacterial pathogens in wildlife
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4540314/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26284930
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0003929
work_keys_str_mv AT razzautimaria acomparisonbetweentranscriptomesequencingand16smetagenomicsfordetectionofbacterialpathogensinwildlife
AT galanmaxime acomparisonbetweentranscriptomesequencingand16smetagenomicsfordetectionofbacterialpathogensinwildlife
AT bernardmaria acomparisonbetweentranscriptomesequencingand16smetagenomicsfordetectionofbacterialpathogensinwildlife
AT mamansarah acomparisonbetweentranscriptomesequencingand16smetagenomicsfordetectionofbacterialpathogensinwildlife
AT kloppchristophe acomparisonbetweentranscriptomesequencingand16smetagenomicsfordetectionofbacterialpathogensinwildlife
AT charbonnelnathalie acomparisonbetweentranscriptomesequencingand16smetagenomicsfordetectionofbacterialpathogensinwildlife
AT vayssiertaussatmuriel acomparisonbetweentranscriptomesequencingand16smetagenomicsfordetectionofbacterialpathogensinwildlife
AT eloitmarc acomparisonbetweentranscriptomesequencingand16smetagenomicsfordetectionofbacterialpathogensinwildlife
AT cossonjeanfrancois acomparisonbetweentranscriptomesequencingand16smetagenomicsfordetectionofbacterialpathogensinwildlife
AT razzautimaria comparisonbetweentranscriptomesequencingand16smetagenomicsfordetectionofbacterialpathogensinwildlife
AT galanmaxime comparisonbetweentranscriptomesequencingand16smetagenomicsfordetectionofbacterialpathogensinwildlife
AT bernardmaria comparisonbetweentranscriptomesequencingand16smetagenomicsfordetectionofbacterialpathogensinwildlife
AT mamansarah comparisonbetweentranscriptomesequencingand16smetagenomicsfordetectionofbacterialpathogensinwildlife
AT kloppchristophe comparisonbetweentranscriptomesequencingand16smetagenomicsfordetectionofbacterialpathogensinwildlife
AT charbonnelnathalie comparisonbetweentranscriptomesequencingand16smetagenomicsfordetectionofbacterialpathogensinwildlife
AT vayssiertaussatmuriel comparisonbetweentranscriptomesequencingand16smetagenomicsfordetectionofbacterialpathogensinwildlife
AT eloitmarc comparisonbetweentranscriptomesequencingand16smetagenomicsfordetectionofbacterialpathogensinwildlife
AT cossonjeanfrancois comparisonbetweentranscriptomesequencingand16smetagenomicsfordetectionofbacterialpathogensinwildlife