» Articles » PMID: 29892802

Comparison of Methods for Library Construction and Short Read Annotation of Shellfish Viral Metagenomes

Overview
Journal Genes Genomics
Specialty Genetics
Date 2018 Jun 13
PMID 29892802
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The emergence and widespread use of high-throughput sequencing technologies have promoted metagenomic studies on environmental or animal samples. Library construction for metagenome sequencing and annotation of the produced sequence reads are important steps in such studies and influence the quality of metagenomic data. In this study, we collected some marine mollusk samples, such as Crassostrea hongkongensis, Chlamys farreri, and Ruditapes philippinarum, from coastal areas in South China. These samples were divided into two batches to compare two library construction methods for shellfish viral metagenome. Our analysis showed that reverse-transcribing RNA into cDNA and then amplifying it simultaneously with DNA by whole genome amplification (WGA) yielded a larger amount of DNA compared to using only WGA or WTA (whole transcriptome amplification). Moreover, higher quality libraries were obtained by agarose gel extraction rather than with AMPure bead size selection. However, the latter can also provide good results if combined with the adjustment of the filter parameters. This, together with its simplicity, makes it a viable alternative. Finally, we compared three annotation tools (BLAST, DIAMOND, and Taxonomer) and two reference databases (NCBI's NR and Uniprot's Uniref). Considering the limitations of computing resources and data transfer speed, we propose the use of DIAMOND with Uniref for annotating metagenomic short reads as its running speed can guarantee a good annotation rate. This study may serve as a useful reference for selecting methods for Shellfish viral metagenome library construction and read annotation.

Citing Articles

Molecular assessment of oyster microbiomes and viromes reveals their potential as pathogen and ecological sentinels.

Walker J, Bente D, Burch M, Cerqueira F, Ren P, Labonte J One Health. 2025; 20:100973.

PMID: 39898315 PMC: 11786891. DOI: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2025.100973.


Identification and classification of the genomes of novel microviruses in poultry slaughterhouse.

Xie K, Lin B, Sun X, Zhu P, Liu C, Liu G Front Microbiol. 2024; 15:1393153.

PMID: 38756731 PMC: 11096546. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1393153.


Combined Analysis of the Whole Transcriptome of Piglets Infected with SADS-CoV Virulent and Avirulent Strains.

Li Q, Tang X, Zhou L, Lv X, Gao L, Lan T Microorganisms. 2023; 11(2).

PMID: 36838374 PMC: 9964493. DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms11020409.

References
1.
Telenius H, Carter N, Bebb C, Nordenskjold M, Ponder B, Tunnacliffe A . Degenerate oligonucleotide-primed PCR: general amplification of target DNA by a single degenerate primer. Genomics. 1992; 13(3):718-25. DOI: 10.1016/0888-7543(92)90147-k. View

2.
Simon C, Daniel R . Metagenomic analyses: past and future trends. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010; 77(4):1153-61. PMC: 3067235. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02345-10. View

3.
Sujayanont P, Chininmanu K, Tassaneetrithep B, Tangthawornchaikul N, Malasit P, Suriyaphol P . Comparison of phi29-based whole genome amplification and whole transcriptome amplification in dengue virus. J Virol Methods. 2013; 195:141-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2013.10.005. View

4.
Pan X, Urban A, Palejev D, Schulz V, Grubert F, Hu Y . A procedure for highly specific, sensitive, and unbiased whole-genome amplification. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008; 105(40):15499-504. PMC: 2563063. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0808028105. View

5.
Djikeng A, Halpin R, Kuzmickas R, DePasse J, Feldblyum J, Sengamalay N . Viral genome sequencing by random priming methods. BMC Genomics. 2008; 9:5. PMC: 2254600. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-9-5. View