Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorO'Sullivan, DM
dc.contributor.authorLaver, T
dc.contributor.authorTemisak, S
dc.contributor.authorRedshaw, N
dc.contributor.authorHarris, KA
dc.contributor.authorFoy, CA
dc.contributor.authorStudholme, DJ
dc.contributor.authorHuggett, JF
dc.date.accessioned2017-02-10T10:24:02Z
dc.date.issued2014-11-21
dc.description.abstractThe application of high-throughput sequencing in profiling microbial communities is providing an unprecedented ability to investigate microbiomes. Such studies typically apply one of two methods: amplicon sequencing using PCR to target a conserved orthologous sequence (typically the 16S ribosomal RNA gene) or whole (meta)genome sequencing (WGS). Both methods have been used to catalog the microbial taxa present in a sample and quantify their respective abundances. However, a comparison of the inherent precision or bias of the different sequencing approaches has not been performed. We previously developed a metagenomic control material (MCM) to investigate error when performing different sequencing strategies. Amplicon sequencing using four different primer strategies and two 16S rRNA regions was examined (Roche 454 Junior) and compared to WGS (Illumina HiSeq). All sequencing methods generally performed comparably and in good agreement with organism specific digital PCR (dPCR); WGS notably demonstrated very high precision. Where discrepancies between relative abundances occurred they tended to differ by less than twofold. Our findings suggest that when alternative sequencing approaches are used for microbial molecular profiling they can perform with good reproducibility, but care should be taken when comparing small differences between distinct methods. This work provides a foundation for future work comparing relative differences between samples and the impact of extraction methods. We also highlight the value of control materials when conducting microbial profiling studies to benchmark methods and set appropriate thresholds.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipThe authors acknowledge funding from the European Metrology Research Programme joint research project “INFECT MET” (http://infectmet.lgcgroup.com) (an EMRP project, jointly funded by the EMRP participating countries within EURAMET and the European Union) and the UK National Measurement System for funding of this work and for the support of Thomas Laver by the BBSRC Industrial Case Studentship award BB/H016120/1.en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 15 (11), pp. 21476 - 21491en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/ijms151121476
dc.identifier.otherijms151121476
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/25738
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherMDPIen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25421243en_GB
dc.rights© 2014 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).en_GB
dc.subjectMetagenomicsen_GB
dc.subjectMicrobiologyen_GB
dc.subjectPolymerase Chain Reactionen_GB
dc.subjectRNA, Ribosomal, 16Sen_GB
dc.subjectReproducibility of Resultsen_GB
dc.subjectSequence Analysis, DNAen_GB
dc.titleAssessing the accuracy of quantitative molecular microbial profilingen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2017-02-10T10:24:02Z
exeter.place-of-publicationSwitzerlanden_GB
dc.descriptionThis is the final version of the article. Available from MDPI via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalInternational Journal of Molecular Sciencesen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record