Back

Optimisation of a DNA extraction protocol for improving the bacterial and fungal classification based on Nanopore sequencing

Thu, M. S.; Sawaswong, V.; Chanchaem, P.; Klomkliew, P.; Campbell, B. J.; Hirankarn, N.; Fothergill, J. L.; Payungporn, S.

2023-06-21 microbiology
10.1101/2023.06.21.545968 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Ribosomal RNA gene amplicon sequencing is commonly used to evaluate microbiome profiles in health and disease and document the impact of interventional treatments. Long-read nanopore sequencing is attractive since it can provide greater classification at the species level. However, optimised protocols to target marker genes for bacterial and fungal profiling are needed. To achieve an increased taxonomic resolution, we developed extraction and long-amplicon PCR-based approaches using Nanopore sequencing. Three sample lysis conditions were applied to a mock microbial community, including known bacterial and fungal species; the 96 MagBead DNA lysis buffer (ML) alone, incorporating bead-beating (MLB) or bead-beating plus MetaPolyzyme enzymatic treatment (MLBE). Profiling of bacterial comparison, MLB had more statistically different bacterial phyla and genera than the others. For fungal profiling, MLB had a significant increase of Ascomycota and a decline of Basidiomycota, subsequently failing to detect Malassezia and Cryptococcus. Also, the principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) plot by the Bray-Curtis index showed a significant difference among groups for bacterial (p = 0.033) and fungal (p = 0.012) profiles. Overall, the microbial profiling and diversity analysis revealed that ML and MLBE have more similarity than MLB for both bacteria and fungi, therefore, bead-beating is not recommended for long-read amplicon sequencing. However, ML alone was suggested as an optimal approach considering DNA yield, classification, reagent cost and hands-on time. This could be an initial proof-of-concept study for simultaneous human microbiome and mycobiome studies.

Matching journals

The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMC Microbiology
35 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
2
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
6.9%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 17%
6.4%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 27%
6.4%
5
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.4%
6
mSphere
281 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
7
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
8
mSystems
361 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.9%
9
Water Research
74 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.4%
10
Microbiome
139 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
11
ISME Communications
103 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
50% of probability mass above
12
Microorganisms
101 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
13
npj Biofilms and Microbiomes
56 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.7%
14
Microbial Genomics
204 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
15
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.5%
16
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.5%
17
Environmental Microbiome
26 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
18
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
19
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.9%
20
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 26%
0.9%
21
Gigabyte
60 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
22
Briefings in Bioinformatics
326 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
23
Microbial Biotechnology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
24
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 21%
0.8%
25
Gut Microbes
70 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
26
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
27
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
28
Microbiology
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
29
Genome Biology
555 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
30
Journal of Visualized Experiments
30 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%