The effect of storage conditions on microbial communities in stool
Autoři:
Kristien Nel Van Zyl aff001; Andrew C. Whitelaw aff001; Mae Newton-Foot aff001
Působiště autorů:
Division of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
aff001; National Health Laboratory Service, Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa
aff002; African Microbiome Institute, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
aff003
Vyšlo v časopise:
PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie:
Research Article
doi:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227486
Souhrn
Microbiome research has experienced a surge of interest in recent years due to the advances and reduced cost of next-generation sequencing technology. The production of high quality and comparable data is dependent on proper sample collection and storage and should be standardized as far as possible. However, this becomes challenging when samples are collected in the field, especially in resource-limited settings. We investigated the impact of different stool storage methods common to the TB-CHAMP clinical trial on the microbial communities in stool. Ten stool samples were subjected to DNA extraction after 48-hour storage at -80°C, room temperature and in a cooler-box, as well as immediate DNA extraction. Three stool DNA extraction kits were evaluated based on DNA yield and quality. Quantitative PCR was performed to determine the relative abundance of the two major gut phyla Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes, and other representative microbial groups. The bacterial populations in the frozen group closely resembled the immediate extraction group, supporting previous findings that storage at -80°C is equivalent to the gold standard of immediate DNA extraction. More variation was seen in the room temperature and cooler-box groups, which may be due to the growth temperature preferences of certain bacterial populations. However, for most bacterial populations, no significant differences were found between the storage groups. As seen in other microbiome studies, the variation between participant samples was greater than that related to differences in storage. We determined that the risk of introducing bias to microbial community profiling through differences in storage will likely be minimal in our setting.
Klíčová slova:
Bacteria – Bifidobacterium – DNA extraction – DNA isolation – Enterobacteriaceae – Lactobacillus – Microbiome – Specimen storage
Zdroje
1. Carroll IM, Ringel-Kulka T, Siddle JP, Klaenhammer TR, Ringel Y. Characterization of the Fecal Microbiota Using High-Throughput Sequencing Reveals a Stable Microbial Community during Storage. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e46953. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046953 23071673.
2. Fouhy F, Deane J, Rea MC, O’Sullivan Ó, Ross RP, O’Callaghan G, et al. The Effects of Freezing on Faecal Microbiota as Determined Using MiSeq Sequencing and Culture-Based Investigations. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0119355. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119355 25748176.
3. Tedjo DI, Jonkers DMAE, Savelkoul PH, Masclee AA, van Best N, Pierik MJ, et al. The Effect of Sampling and Storage on the Fecal Microbiota Composition in Healthy and Diseased Subjects. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0126685. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126685 26024217.
4. Song SJ, Amir A, Metcalf JL, Amato KR, Xu ZZ, Humphrey G, et al. Preservation Methods Differ in Fecal Microbiome Stability, Affecting Suitability for Field Studies. mSystems. 2016;1(3):e00021–16. doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00021-16 27822526.
5. Cardona S, Eck A, Cassellas M, Gallart M, Alastrue C, Dore J, et al. Storage conditions of intestinal microbiota matter in metagenomic analysis. BMC Microbiol. 2012;12(1):158. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-12-158 22846661.
6. Choo JM, Leong LE, Rogers GB. Sample storage conditions significantly influence faecal microbiome profiles. Sci Rep. 2015;5:16350. doi: 10.1038/srep16350 26572876.
7. Roesch LFW, Casella G, Simell O, Krischer J, Wasserfall CH, Schatz D, et al. Influence of Fecal Sample Storage on Bacterial Community Diversity. Open Microbiol J. 2009;3:40–6. doi: 10.2174/1874285800903010040 19440250.
8. Lauber CL, Zhou N, Gordon JI, Knight R, Fierer N. Effect of storage conditions on the assessment of bacterial community structure in soil and human-associated samples. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2010;307(1):80–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2010.01965.x 20412303.
9. Dominianni C, Wu J, Hayes RB, Ahn J. Comparison of methods for fecal microbiome biospecimen collection. BMC Microbiol. 2014;14(1):103. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-14-103 24758293.
10. Bahl MI, Bergström A, Licht TR. Freezing fecal samples prior to DNA extraction affects the Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes ratio determined by downstream quantitative PCR analysis. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2012;329(2):193–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2012.02523.x 22325006.
11. Kwok L, Zhang J, Guo Z, Gesudu Q, Zheng Y, Qiao J, et al. Characterization of Fecal Microbiota across Seven Chinese Ethnic Groups by Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e93631. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093631 24699404.
12. Gorzelak MA, Gill SK, Tasnim N, Ahmadi-Vand Z, Jay M, Gibson DL. Methods for Improving Human Gut Microbiome Data by Reducing Variability through Sample Processing and Storage of Stool. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0134802. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134802 26252519. Erratum in: PLoS One. 2015;10(9): e0139529.
13. McDonald JH. Kruskal–Wallis test. In: Handbook of Biological Statistics. 3rd ed. Baltimore, Maryland: Sparky House Publishing; 2014. p. 157–64.
14. Byun R, Nadkarni MA, Chhour K-L, Martin FE, Jacques NA, Hunter N. Quantitative Analysis of Diverse Lactobacillus Species Present in Advanced Dental Caries. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42(7):3128–36. doi: 10.1128/JCM.42.7.3128-3136.2004 15243071.
15. Bellemain E, Carlsen T, Brochmann C, Coissac E, Taberlet P, Kauserud H. ITS as an environmental DNA barcode for fungi: an in silico approach reveals potential PCR biases. BMC Microbiol. 2010;10(1):189. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-10-189 20618939.
16. Walter J, Tannock GW, Tilsala-Timisjarvi A, Rodtong S, Loach DM, Munro K, et al. Detection and Identification of Gastrointestinal Lactobacillus Species by Using Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis and Species-Specific PCR Primers. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000;66(1):297–303. doi: 10.1128/aem.66.1.297-303.2000 10618239.
17. Guo X, Xia X, Tang R, Zhou J, Zhao H, Wang K. Development of a real-time PCR method for Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes in faeces and its application to quantify intestinal population of obese and lean pigs. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2008;47(5):367–73. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2008.02408.x 19146523.
18. Bartosch S, Fite A, Macfarlane GT, McMurdo MET. Characterization of Bacterial Communities in Feces from Healthy Elderly Volunteers and Hospitalized Elderly Patients by Using Real-Time PCR and Effects of Antibiotic Treatment on the Fecal Microbiota. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004;70(6):3575–81. doi: 10.1128/AEM.70.6.3575-3581.2004 15184159.
19. Delroisse J-M, Boulvin A-L, Parmentier I, Dauphin RD, Vandenbol M, Portetelle D. Quantification of Bifidobacterium spp. and Lactobacillus spp. in rat fecal samples by real-time PCR. Microbiol Res. 2008;163(6):663–70. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2006.09.004 19216105.
20. Huseyin CE, Rubio RC, O’Sullivan O, Cotter PD, Scanlan PD. The Fungal Frontier: A Comparative Analysis of Methods Used in the Study of the Human Gut Mycobiome. Front Microbiol. 2017;8(JUL):1–15. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01432 28824566.
21. Aagaard K, Petrosino J, Keitel W, Watson M, Katancik J, Garcia N, et al. The Human Microbiome Project strategy for comprehensive sampling of the human microbiome and why it matters. FASEB J. 2012/11/19. 2013;27(3):1012–22. doi: 10.1096/fj.12-220806 23165986.
22. Nash AK, Auchtung TA, Wong MC, Smith DP, Gesell JR, Ross MC, et al. The gut mycobiome of the Human Microbiome Project healthy cohort. Microbiome. 2017;5(1):153. doi: 10.1186/s40168-017-0373-4 29178920
23. Wu GD, Lewis JD, Hoffmann C, Chen Y-Y, Knight R, Bittinger K, et al. Sampling and pyrosequencing methods for characterizing bacterial communities in the human gut using 16S sequence tags. BMC Microbiol. 2010;10(1):206. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-10-206 20673359.
24. Henderson G, Cox F, Kittelmann S, Miri VH, Zethof M, Noel SJ, et al. Effect of DNA Extraction Methods and Sampling Techniques on the Apparent Structure of Cow and Sheep Rumen Microbial Communities. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e74787. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074787 24040342.
25. Kennedy NA, Walker AW, Berry SH, Duncan SH, Farquarson FM, Louis P, et al. The Impact of Different DNA Extraction Kits and Laboratories upon the Assessment of Human Gut Microbiota Composition by 16S rRNA Gene Sequencing. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e88982. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088982 24586470.
26. Salter SJ, Cox MJ, Turek EM, Calus ST, Cookson WO, Moffatt MF, et al. Reagent and laboratory contamination can critically impact sequence-based microbiome analyses. BMC Biol. 2014;12(1):87. doi: 10.1186/s12915-014-0087-z 25387460.
Článek vyšel v časopise
PLOS One
2020 Číslo 1
- S diagnostikou Parkinsonovy nemoci může nově pomoci AI nástroj pro hodnocení mrkacího reflexu
- Proč při poslechu některé muziky prostě musíme tančit?
- Je libo čepici místo mozkového implantátu?
- Chůze do schodů pomáhá prodloužit život a vyhnout se srdečním chorobám
- Pomůže v budoucnu s triáží na pohotovostech umělá inteligence?
Nejčtenější v tomto čísle
- Severity of misophonia symptoms is associated with worse cognitive control when exposed to misophonia trigger sounds
- Chemical analysis of snus products from the United States and northern Europe
- Calcium dobesilate reduces VEGF signaling by interfering with heparan sulfate binding site and protects from vascular complications in diabetic mice
- Effect of Lactobacillus acidophilus D2/CSL (CECT 4529) supplementation in drinking water on chicken crop and caeca microbiome
Zvyšte si kvalifikaci online z pohodlí domova
Všechny kurzy