Cargando…

Laboratory contamination over time during low‐biomass sample analysis

Bacteria are not only ubiquitous on earth but can also be incredibly diverse within clean laboratories and reagents. The presence of both living and dead bacteria in laboratory environments and reagents is especially problematic when examining samples with low endogenous content (e.g., skin swabs, t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Weyrich, Laura S., Farrer, Andrew G., Eisenhofer, Raphael, Arriola, Luis A., Young, Jennifer, Selway, Caitlin A., Handsley‐Davis, Matilda, Adler, Christina J., Breen, James, Cooper, Alan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6850301/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30887686
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13011
_version_ 1783469394819547136
author Weyrich, Laura S.
Farrer, Andrew G.
Eisenhofer, Raphael
Arriola, Luis A.
Young, Jennifer
Selway, Caitlin A.
Handsley‐Davis, Matilda
Adler, Christina J.
Breen, James
Cooper, Alan
author_facet Weyrich, Laura S.
Farrer, Andrew G.
Eisenhofer, Raphael
Arriola, Luis A.
Young, Jennifer
Selway, Caitlin A.
Handsley‐Davis, Matilda
Adler, Christina J.
Breen, James
Cooper, Alan
author_sort Weyrich, Laura S.
collection PubMed
description Bacteria are not only ubiquitous on earth but can also be incredibly diverse within clean laboratories and reagents. The presence of both living and dead bacteria in laboratory environments and reagents is especially problematic when examining samples with low endogenous content (e.g., skin swabs, tissue biopsies, ice, water, degraded forensic samples or ancient material), where contaminants can outnumber endogenous microorganisms within samples. The contribution of contaminants within high‐throughput studies remains poorly understood because of the relatively low number of contaminant surveys. Here, we examined 144 negative control samples (extraction blank and no‐template amplification controls) collected in both typical molecular laboratories and an ultraclean ancient DNA laboratory over 5 years to characterize long‐term contaminant diversity. We additionally compared the contaminant content within a home‐made silica‐based extraction method, commonly used to analyse low endogenous content samples, with a widely used commercial DNA extraction kit. The contaminant taxonomic profile of the ultraclean ancient DNA laboratory was unique compared to modern molecular biology laboratories, and changed over time according to researcher, month and season. The commercial kit also contained higher microbial diversity and several human‐associated taxa in comparison to the home‐made silica extraction protocol. We recommend a minimum of two strategies to reduce the impacts of laboratory contaminants within low‐biomass metagenomic studies: (a) extraction blank controls should be included and sequenced with every batch of extractions and (b) the contributions of laboratory contamination should be assessed and reported in each high‐throughput metagenomic study.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6850301
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68503012019-11-18 Laboratory contamination over time during low‐biomass sample analysis Weyrich, Laura S. Farrer, Andrew G. Eisenhofer, Raphael Arriola, Luis A. Young, Jennifer Selway, Caitlin A. Handsley‐Davis, Matilda Adler, Christina J. Breen, James Cooper, Alan Mol Ecol Resour RESOURCE ARTICLES Bacteria are not only ubiquitous on earth but can also be incredibly diverse within clean laboratories and reagents. The presence of both living and dead bacteria in laboratory environments and reagents is especially problematic when examining samples with low endogenous content (e.g., skin swabs, tissue biopsies, ice, water, degraded forensic samples or ancient material), where contaminants can outnumber endogenous microorganisms within samples. The contribution of contaminants within high‐throughput studies remains poorly understood because of the relatively low number of contaminant surveys. Here, we examined 144 negative control samples (extraction blank and no‐template amplification controls) collected in both typical molecular laboratories and an ultraclean ancient DNA laboratory over 5 years to characterize long‐term contaminant diversity. We additionally compared the contaminant content within a home‐made silica‐based extraction method, commonly used to analyse low endogenous content samples, with a widely used commercial DNA extraction kit. The contaminant taxonomic profile of the ultraclean ancient DNA laboratory was unique compared to modern molecular biology laboratories, and changed over time according to researcher, month and season. The commercial kit also contained higher microbial diversity and several human‐associated taxa in comparison to the home‐made silica extraction protocol. We recommend a minimum of two strategies to reduce the impacts of laboratory contaminants within low‐biomass metagenomic studies: (a) extraction blank controls should be included and sequenced with every batch of extractions and (b) the contributions of laboratory contamination should be assessed and reported in each high‐throughput metagenomic study. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-04-29 2019-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6850301/ /pubmed/30887686 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13011 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Molecular Ecology Resources Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle RESOURCE ARTICLES
Weyrich, Laura S.
Farrer, Andrew G.
Eisenhofer, Raphael
Arriola, Luis A.
Young, Jennifer
Selway, Caitlin A.
Handsley‐Davis, Matilda
Adler, Christina J.
Breen, James
Cooper, Alan
Laboratory contamination over time during low‐biomass sample analysis
title Laboratory contamination over time during low‐biomass sample analysis
title_full Laboratory contamination over time during low‐biomass sample analysis
title_fullStr Laboratory contamination over time during low‐biomass sample analysis
title_full_unstemmed Laboratory contamination over time during low‐biomass sample analysis
title_short Laboratory contamination over time during low‐biomass sample analysis
title_sort laboratory contamination over time during low‐biomass sample analysis
topic RESOURCE ARTICLES
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6850301/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30887686
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13011
work_keys_str_mv AT weyrichlauras laboratorycontaminationovertimeduringlowbiomasssampleanalysis
AT farrerandrewg laboratorycontaminationovertimeduringlowbiomasssampleanalysis
AT eisenhoferraphael laboratorycontaminationovertimeduringlowbiomasssampleanalysis
AT arriolaluisa laboratorycontaminationovertimeduringlowbiomasssampleanalysis
AT youngjennifer laboratorycontaminationovertimeduringlowbiomasssampleanalysis
AT selwaycaitlina laboratorycontaminationovertimeduringlowbiomasssampleanalysis
AT handsleydavismatilda laboratorycontaminationovertimeduringlowbiomasssampleanalysis
AT adlerchristinaj laboratorycontaminationovertimeduringlowbiomasssampleanalysis
AT breenjames laboratorycontaminationovertimeduringlowbiomasssampleanalysis
AT cooperalan laboratorycontaminationovertimeduringlowbiomasssampleanalysis