» Articles » PMID: 26512100

Library Preparation Methodology Can Influence Genomic and Functional Predictions in Human Microbiome Research

Abstract

Observations from human microbiome studies are often conflicting or inconclusive. Many factors likely contribute to these issues including small cohort sizes, sample collection, and handling and processing differences. The field of microbiome research is moving from 16S rDNA gene sequencing to a more comprehensive genomic and functional representation through whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of complete communities. Here we performed quantitative and qualitative analyses comparing WGS metagenomic data from human stool specimens using the Illumina Nextera XT and Illumina TruSeq DNA PCR-free kits, and the KAPA Biosystems Hyper Prep PCR and PCR-free systems. Significant differences in taxonomy are observed among the four different next-generation sequencing library preparations using a DNA mock community and a cell control of known concentration. We also revealed biases in error profiles, duplication rates, and loss of reads representing organisms that have a high %G+C content that can significantly impact results. As with all methods, the use of benchmarking controls has revealed critical differences among methods that impact sequencing results and later would impact study interpretation. We recommend that the community adopt PCR-free-based approaches to reduce PCR bias that affects calculations of abundance and to improve assemblies for accurate taxonomic assignment. Furthermore, the inclusion of a known-input cell spike-in control provides accurate quantitation of organisms in clinical samples.

Citing Articles

The quest for environmental analytical microbiology: absolute quantitative microbiome using cellular internal standards.

Wang C, Yang Y, Xu X, Wang D, Shi X, Liu L Microbiome. 2025; 13(1):26.

PMID: 39871306 PMC: 11773863. DOI: 10.1186/s40168-024-02009-2.


Cross-comparison of gut metagenomic profiling strategies.

Gulyas G, Kakuk B, Dormo A, Jaray T, Prazsak I, Csabai Z Commun Biol. 2024; 7(1):1445.

PMID: 39505993 PMC: 11541596. DOI: 10.1038/s42003-024-07158-6.


A single-stranded based library preparation method for virome characterization.

Zhai X, Gobbi A, Kot W, Krych L, Nielsen D, Deng L Microbiome. 2024; 12(1):219.

PMID: 39449043 PMC: 11515303. DOI: 10.1186/s40168-024-01935-5.


Characterizing the soil microbial community associated with the fungal pathogen .

Radosevich M, Head J, Couper L, Gomez-Weaver A, Camponuri S, Montoya L bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 39386668 PMC: 11463387. DOI: 10.1101/2024.09.27.615053.


Standardization of gut microbiome analysis in sports.

Mancin L, Paoli A, Berry S, Gonzalez J, Collins A, Lizarraga M Cell Rep Med. 2024; 5(10):101759.

PMID: 39368478 PMC: 11514603. DOI: 10.1016/j.xcrm.2024.101759.


References
1.
Franzosa E, Morgan X, Segata N, Waldron L, Reyes J, Earl A . Relating the metatranscriptome and metagenome of the human gut. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014; 111(22):E2329-38. PMC: 4050606. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1319284111. View

2.
Flores R, Shi J, Gail M, Gajer P, Ravel J, Goedert J . Assessment of the human faecal microbiota: II. Reproducibility and associations of 16S rRNA pyrosequences. Eur J Clin Invest. 2012; 42(8):855-63. PMC: 3369017. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2362.2012.02659.x. View

3.
Probst A, Weinmaier T, DeSantis T, Santo Domingo J, Ashbolt N . New perspectives on microbial community distortion after whole-genome amplification. PLoS One. 2015; 10(5):e0124158. PMC: 4444113. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124158. View

4.
Brooks J, Edwards D, Harwich Jr M, Rivera M, Fettweis J, Serrano M . The truth about metagenomics: quantifying and counteracting bias in 16S rRNA studies. BMC Microbiol. 2015; 15:66. PMC: 4433096. DOI: 10.1186/s12866-015-0351-6. View

5.
. A framework for human microbiome research. Nature. 2012; 486(7402):215-21. PMC: 3377744. DOI: 10.1038/nature11209. View