Cargando…
The impact of storage buffer, DNA extraction method, and polymerase on microbial analysis
Next-generation sequencing approaches used to characterize microbial communities are subject to technical caveats that can lead to major distortion of acquired data. Determining the optimal sample handling protocol is essential to minimize the bias for different sample types. Using a mock community...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5908915/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29674641 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24573-y |
_version_ | 1783315792124706816 |
---|---|
author | Hallmaier-Wacker, Luisa K. Lueert, Simone Roos, Christian Knauf, Sascha |
author_facet | Hallmaier-Wacker, Luisa K. Lueert, Simone Roos, Christian Knauf, Sascha |
author_sort | Hallmaier-Wacker, Luisa K. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Next-generation sequencing approaches used to characterize microbial communities are subject to technical caveats that can lead to major distortion of acquired data. Determining the optimal sample handling protocol is essential to minimize the bias for different sample types. Using a mock community composed of 22 bacterial strains of even concentration, we studied a combination of handling conditions to determine the optimal conditions for swab material. Examining a combination of effects simulates the reality of handling environmental samples and may thus provide a better foundation for the standardization of protocols. We found that the choice of storage buffer and extraction kit affects the detected bacterial composition, while different 16S rRNA amplification methods only had a minor effect. All bacterial genera present in the mock community were identified with minimal levels of contamination independent of the choice of sample processing. Despite this, the observed bacterial profile for all tested conditions were significantly different from the expected abundance. This highlights the need for proper validation and standardization for each sample type using a mock community and blank control samples, to assess the bias in the protocol and reduce variation across the datasets. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5908915 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59089152018-04-30 The impact of storage buffer, DNA extraction method, and polymerase on microbial analysis Hallmaier-Wacker, Luisa K. Lueert, Simone Roos, Christian Knauf, Sascha Sci Rep Article Next-generation sequencing approaches used to characterize microbial communities are subject to technical caveats that can lead to major distortion of acquired data. Determining the optimal sample handling protocol is essential to minimize the bias for different sample types. Using a mock community composed of 22 bacterial strains of even concentration, we studied a combination of handling conditions to determine the optimal conditions for swab material. Examining a combination of effects simulates the reality of handling environmental samples and may thus provide a better foundation for the standardization of protocols. We found that the choice of storage buffer and extraction kit affects the detected bacterial composition, while different 16S rRNA amplification methods only had a minor effect. All bacterial genera present in the mock community were identified with minimal levels of contamination independent of the choice of sample processing. Despite this, the observed bacterial profile for all tested conditions were significantly different from the expected abundance. This highlights the need for proper validation and standardization for each sample type using a mock community and blank control samples, to assess the bias in the protocol and reduce variation across the datasets. Nature Publishing Group UK 2018-04-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5908915/ /pubmed/29674641 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24573-y Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This 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 license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license 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 license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Article Hallmaier-Wacker, Luisa K. Lueert, Simone Roos, Christian Knauf, Sascha The impact of storage buffer, DNA extraction method, and polymerase on microbial analysis |
title | The impact of storage buffer, DNA extraction method, and polymerase on microbial analysis |
title_full | The impact of storage buffer, DNA extraction method, and polymerase on microbial analysis |
title_fullStr | The impact of storage buffer, DNA extraction method, and polymerase on microbial analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | The impact of storage buffer, DNA extraction method, and polymerase on microbial analysis |
title_short | The impact of storage buffer, DNA extraction method, and polymerase on microbial analysis |
title_sort | impact of storage buffer, dna extraction method, and polymerase on microbial analysis |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5908915/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29674641 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24573-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hallmaierwackerluisak theimpactofstoragebufferdnaextractionmethodandpolymeraseonmicrobialanalysis AT lueertsimone theimpactofstoragebufferdnaextractionmethodandpolymeraseonmicrobialanalysis AT rooschristian theimpactofstoragebufferdnaextractionmethodandpolymeraseonmicrobialanalysis AT knaufsascha theimpactofstoragebufferdnaextractionmethodandpolymeraseonmicrobialanalysis AT hallmaierwackerluisak impactofstoragebufferdnaextractionmethodandpolymeraseonmicrobialanalysis AT lueertsimone impactofstoragebufferdnaextractionmethodandpolymeraseonmicrobialanalysis AT rooschristian impactofstoragebufferdnaextractionmethodandpolymeraseonmicrobialanalysis AT knaufsascha impactofstoragebufferdnaextractionmethodandpolymeraseonmicrobialanalysis |