Comparison of commercial DNA extraction kits for whole metagenome sequencing of human oral, vaginal, and rectal microbiome samples
Wright, M. L.; Podnar, J.; Longoria, K. D.; Nguyen, T.; Lim, S.; Garcia, S.; Wylie, D.
Show abstract
IntroductionAdvancements in DNA extraction and sequencing technologies have been fundamental in deciphering the significance of the microbiome related to human health and pathology. Whole metagenome shotgun sequencing (WMS) is gaining popularity in use compared to its predecessor (i.e., amplicon-based approaches). However, like amplicon-based approaches, WMS is subject to bias from DNA extraction methods that can compromise the integrity of sequencing and subsequent findings. The purpose of this study was to evaluate systematic differences among four commercially available DNA extraction kits frequently used for WMS analysis of the microbiome. MethodsOral, vaginal, and rectal swabs were collected in replicates of four by a healthcare provider from five participants and randomized to one of four DNA extraction kits. Two extraction blanks and three replicate mock community samples were also extracted using each extraction kit. WMS was completed with NovaSeq 6000 for all samples. Sequencing and microbial communities were analyzed using nonmetric multidimensional scaling and compositional bias analysis. ResultsExtraction kits differentially biased the percentage of reads attributed to microbial taxa across samples and body sites. The PowerSoil Pro kit performed best in approximating expected proportions of mock communities. While HostZERO was biased against gram-negative bacteria, the kit outperformed other kits in extracting fungal DNA. In clinical samples, HostZERO yielded a smaller fraction of reads assigned to Homo sapiens across sites and had a higher fraction of reads assigned to bacterial taxa compared to other kits. However, HostZERO appears to bias representation of microbial communities and demonstrated the most dispersion by site, particularly for vaginal and rectal samples. ConclusionsSystematic differences exist among four frequently referenced DNA extraction kits when used for WMS analysis of the human microbiome. Consideration of such differences in study design and data interpretation is imperative to safeguard the integrity of microbiome research and reproducibility of results.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- rRNA Operon Improves Species-Level Classification of Bacteria and Microbial Community Analysis Compared to 16S rRNA 96%
- Library Preparation and Sequencing Platform Introduce Bias in Metagenomic-Based Characterizations of Microbiomes 96%
- Nested PCR to optimize rpoB metabarcoding for low-concentration and host-associated bacterial DNA 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Variant calling for cpn60 barcode sequence-based microbiome profiling 97%
- MinION Sequencing of colorectal cancer tumour microbiomes - a comparison with amplicon-based and RNA-Sequencing 96%
- Assessment of two DNA extraction kits for profiling poultry respiratory microbiota from multiple sample types 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clade-specific long-read sequencing increases the accuracy and specificity of the gyrB phylogenetic marker gene 96%
- Evaluation of the effects of library preparation procedure and sample characteristics on the accuracy of metagenomic profiles 96%
- Addressing the dynamic nature of reference data: a new nt database for robust metagenomic classification 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Composition of the North American wood frog (Rana sylvatica) skin microbiome and seasonal variation in community structure 95%
- Population density affects the outcome of competition in co-cultures of Gardnerella species isolated from the human vaginal microbiome 94%
- A generalist lifestyle allows rare Gardnerella spp. to persist at low levels in the vaginal microbiome 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.