Cargando…

Optimizing and evaluating the reconstruction of Metagenome-assembled microbial genomes

BACKGROUND: Microbiome/host interactions describe characteristics that affect the host's health. Shotgun metagenomics includes sequencing a random subset of the microbiome to analyze its taxonomic and metabolic potential. Reconstruction of DNA fragments into genomes from metagenomes (called met...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Papudeshi, Bhavya, Haggerty, J. Matthew, Doane, Michael, Morris, Megan M., Walsh, Kevin, Beattie, Douglas T., Pande, Dnyanada, Zaeri, Parisa, Silva, Genivaldo G. Z., Thompson, Fabiano, Edwards, Robert A., Dinsdale, Elizabeth A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5706307/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29183281
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-017-4294-1
_version_ 1783282203965259776
author Papudeshi, Bhavya
Haggerty, J. Matthew
Doane, Michael
Morris, Megan M.
Walsh, Kevin
Beattie, Douglas T.
Pande, Dnyanada
Zaeri, Parisa
Silva, Genivaldo G. Z.
Thompson, Fabiano
Edwards, Robert A.
Dinsdale, Elizabeth A.
author_facet Papudeshi, Bhavya
Haggerty, J. Matthew
Doane, Michael
Morris, Megan M.
Walsh, Kevin
Beattie, Douglas T.
Pande, Dnyanada
Zaeri, Parisa
Silva, Genivaldo G. Z.
Thompson, Fabiano
Edwards, Robert A.
Dinsdale, Elizabeth A.
author_sort Papudeshi, Bhavya
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Microbiome/host interactions describe characteristics that affect the host's health. Shotgun metagenomics includes sequencing a random subset of the microbiome to analyze its taxonomic and metabolic potential. Reconstruction of DNA fragments into genomes from metagenomes (called metagenome-assembled genomes) assigns unknown fragments to taxa/function and facilitates discovery of novel organisms. Genome reconstruction incorporates sequence assembly and sorting of assembled sequences into bins, characteristic of a genome. However, the microbial community composition, including taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity may influence genome reconstruction. We determine the optimal reconstruction method for four microbiome projects that had variable sequencing platforms (IonTorrent and Illumina), diversity (high or low), and environment (coral reefs and kelp forests), using a set of parameters to select for optimal assembly and binning tools. METHODS: We tested the effects of the assembly and binning processes on population genome reconstruction using 105 marine metagenomes from 4 projects. Reconstructed genomes were obtained from each project using 3 assemblers (IDBA, MetaVelvet, and SPAdes) and 2 binning tools (GroopM and MetaBat). We assessed the efficiency of assemblers using statistics that including contig continuity and contig chimerism and the effectiveness of binning tools using genome completeness and taxonomic identification. RESULTS: We concluded that SPAdes, assembled more contigs (143,718 ± 124 contigs) of longer length (N50 = 1632 ± 108 bp), and incorporated the most sequences (sequences-assembled = 19.65%). The microbial richness and evenness were maintained across the assembly, suggesting low contig chimeras. SPAdes assembly was responsive to the biological and technological variations within the project, compared with other assemblers. Among binning tools, we conclude that MetaBat produced bins with less variation in GC content (average standard deviation: 1.49), low species richness (4.91 ± 0.66), and higher genome completeness (40.92 ± 1.75) across all projects. MetaBat extracted 115 bins from the 4 projects of which 66 bins were identified as reconstructed metagenome-assembled genomes with sequences belonging to a specific genus. We identified 13 novel genomes, some of which were 100% complete, but show low similarity to genomes within databases. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we present a set of biologically relevant parameters for evaluation to select for optimal assembly and binning tools. For the tools we tested, SPAdes assembler and MetaBat binning tools reconstructed quality metagenome-assembled genomes for the four projects. We also conclude that metagenomes from microbial communities that have high coverage of phylogenetically distinct, and low taxonomic diversity results in highest quality metagenome-assembled genomes. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12864-017-4294-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5706307
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57063072017-12-05 Optimizing and evaluating the reconstruction of Metagenome-assembled microbial genomes Papudeshi, Bhavya Haggerty, J. Matthew Doane, Michael Morris, Megan M. Walsh, Kevin Beattie, Douglas T. Pande, Dnyanada Zaeri, Parisa Silva, Genivaldo G. Z. Thompson, Fabiano Edwards, Robert A. Dinsdale, Elizabeth A. BMC Genomics Methodology Article BACKGROUND: Microbiome/host interactions describe characteristics that affect the host's health. Shotgun metagenomics includes sequencing a random subset of the microbiome to analyze its taxonomic and metabolic potential. Reconstruction of DNA fragments into genomes from metagenomes (called metagenome-assembled genomes) assigns unknown fragments to taxa/function and facilitates discovery of novel organisms. Genome reconstruction incorporates sequence assembly and sorting of assembled sequences into bins, characteristic of a genome. However, the microbial community composition, including taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity may influence genome reconstruction. We determine the optimal reconstruction method for four microbiome projects that had variable sequencing platforms (IonTorrent and Illumina), diversity (high or low), and environment (coral reefs and kelp forests), using a set of parameters to select for optimal assembly and binning tools. METHODS: We tested the effects of the assembly and binning processes on population genome reconstruction using 105 marine metagenomes from 4 projects. Reconstructed genomes were obtained from each project using 3 assemblers (IDBA, MetaVelvet, and SPAdes) and 2 binning tools (GroopM and MetaBat). We assessed the efficiency of assemblers using statistics that including contig continuity and contig chimerism and the effectiveness of binning tools using genome completeness and taxonomic identification. RESULTS: We concluded that SPAdes, assembled more contigs (143,718 ± 124 contigs) of longer length (N50 = 1632 ± 108 bp), and incorporated the most sequences (sequences-assembled = 19.65%). The microbial richness and evenness were maintained across the assembly, suggesting low contig chimeras. SPAdes assembly was responsive to the biological and technological variations within the project, compared with other assemblers. Among binning tools, we conclude that MetaBat produced bins with less variation in GC content (average standard deviation: 1.49), low species richness (4.91 ± 0.66), and higher genome completeness (40.92 ± 1.75) across all projects. MetaBat extracted 115 bins from the 4 projects of which 66 bins were identified as reconstructed metagenome-assembled genomes with sequences belonging to a specific genus. We identified 13 novel genomes, some of which were 100% complete, but show low similarity to genomes within databases. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we present a set of biologically relevant parameters for evaluation to select for optimal assembly and binning tools. For the tools we tested, SPAdes assembler and MetaBat binning tools reconstructed quality metagenome-assembled genomes for the four projects. We also conclude that metagenomes from microbial communities that have high coverage of phylogenetically distinct, and low taxonomic diversity results in highest quality metagenome-assembled genomes. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12864-017-4294-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-11-28 /pmc/articles/PMC5706307/ /pubmed/29183281 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-017-4294-1 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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
Papudeshi, Bhavya
Haggerty, J. Matthew
Doane, Michael
Morris, Megan M.
Walsh, Kevin
Beattie, Douglas T.
Pande, Dnyanada
Zaeri, Parisa
Silva, Genivaldo G. Z.
Thompson, Fabiano
Edwards, Robert A.
Dinsdale, Elizabeth A.
Optimizing and evaluating the reconstruction of Metagenome-assembled microbial genomes
title Optimizing and evaluating the reconstruction of Metagenome-assembled microbial genomes
title_full Optimizing and evaluating the reconstruction of Metagenome-assembled microbial genomes
title_fullStr Optimizing and evaluating the reconstruction of Metagenome-assembled microbial genomes
title_full_unstemmed Optimizing and evaluating the reconstruction of Metagenome-assembled microbial genomes
title_short Optimizing and evaluating the reconstruction of Metagenome-assembled microbial genomes
title_sort optimizing and evaluating the reconstruction of metagenome-assembled microbial genomes
topic Methodology Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5706307/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29183281
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-017-4294-1
work_keys_str_mv AT papudeshibhavya optimizingandevaluatingthereconstructionofmetagenomeassembledmicrobialgenomes
AT haggertyjmatthew optimizingandevaluatingthereconstructionofmetagenomeassembledmicrobialgenomes
AT doanemichael optimizingandevaluatingthereconstructionofmetagenomeassembledmicrobialgenomes
AT morrismeganm optimizingandevaluatingthereconstructionofmetagenomeassembledmicrobialgenomes
AT walshkevin optimizingandevaluatingthereconstructionofmetagenomeassembledmicrobialgenomes
AT beattiedouglast optimizingandevaluatingthereconstructionofmetagenomeassembledmicrobialgenomes
AT pandednyanada optimizingandevaluatingthereconstructionofmetagenomeassembledmicrobialgenomes
AT zaeriparisa optimizingandevaluatingthereconstructionofmetagenomeassembledmicrobialgenomes
AT silvagenivaldogz optimizingandevaluatingthereconstructionofmetagenomeassembledmicrobialgenomes
AT thompsonfabiano optimizingandevaluatingthereconstructionofmetagenomeassembledmicrobialgenomes
AT edwardsroberta optimizingandevaluatingthereconstructionofmetagenomeassembledmicrobialgenomes
AT dinsdaleelizabetha optimizingandevaluatingthereconstructionofmetagenomeassembledmicrobialgenomes