Comparison between DNA- and cDNA-based gut microbial community analyses using 16S rRNA gene sequences

16S rRNA 유전자 서열 분석을 이용한 DNA 및 cDNA 기반 장내 미생물 군집 분석의 비교

  • Jo, Hyejun (Faculty of Biotechnology, College of Applied Life Sciences, Jeju National University) ;
  • Hong, Jiwan (Faculty of Biotechnology, College of Applied Life Sciences, Jeju National University) ;
  • Unno, Tatsuya (Faculty of Biotechnology, College of Applied Life Sciences, Jeju National University)
  • 조혜준 (제주대학교 생명자원과학대학 생명공학부) ;
  • 홍지완 (제주대학교 생명자원과학대학 생명공학부) ;
  • 운노타쯔야 (제주대학교 생명자원과학대학 생명공학부)
  • Received : 2019.06.14
  • Accepted : 2019.07.05
  • Published : 2019.09.30


Studies based on microbial community analyses have increased in the recent decade since the development of next generation sequencing technology. Associations of gut microbiota with host's health are one of the major outcomes of microbial ecology filed. The major approach for microbial community analysis includes the sequencing of variable regions of 16S rRNA genes, which does not provide the information of bacterial activities. Here, we conducted RNA-based microbial community analysis and compared results obtained from DNA- and its cDNA-based microbial community analyses. Our results indicated that these two approaches differed in the ratio of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, known as an obesity indicator, as well as abundance of some key bacteria in gut metabolisms such as butyrate producers and probiotics strains. Therefore, cDNA-based microbial community may provide different insights regarding roles of gut microbiota compared to the previous studies where DNA-based microbial community analyses were performed.


cDNA;gut microbiota;microbial community analysis;miSeq


Supported by : Jeju National University


  1. Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK, Fierer N, Pena AG, Goodrich JK, Gordon JI, et al. 2010. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat. Methods 7, 335-336.
  2. Duncan SH, Lobley GE, Holtrop G, Ince J, Johnstone AM, Louis P, and Flint HJ. 2008. Human colonic microbiota associated with diet, obesity and weight loss. Int. J. Obes. (Lond) 32, 1720-1724.
  3. Eom T, Kim YS, Choi CH, Sadowsky MJ, and Unno T. 2018. Current understanding of microbiota- and dietary-therapies for treating inflammatory bowel disease. J. Microbiol. 56, 189-198.
  4. Hopfner F, Kunstner A, Muller SH, Kunzel S, Zeuner KE, Margraf NG, Deuschl G, Baines JF, and Kuhlenbaumer G. 2017. Gut microbiota in Parkinson disease in a northern German cohort. Brain Res. 1667, 41-45.
  5. Houghton D, Hardy T, Stewart C, Errington L, Day CP, Trenell MI, and Avery L. 2018. Systematic review assessing the effectiveness of dietary intervention on gut microbiota in adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 61, 1700-1711.
  6. Jahani-Sherafat S, Alebouyeh M, Moghim S, Ahmadi Amoli H, and Ghasemian-Safaei H. 2018. Role of gut microbiota in the pathogenesis of colorectal cancer; a review article. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. Bed Bench 11, 101-109.
  7. Konikoff T and Gophna U. 2016. Oscillospira: a central, enigmatic component of the human gut microbiota. Trends Microbiol. 24, 523-524.
  8. Ley RE, Turnbaugh PJ, Klein S, and Gordon JI. 2006. Microbial ecology: human gut microbes associated with obesity. Nature 444, 1022-1023.
  9. Liu F, Li J, Wu F, Zheng H, Peng Q, and Zhou H. 2019. Altered composition and function of intestinal microbiota in autism spectrum disorders: a systematic review. Transl. Psychiatry 9, 43.
  10. McDonald D, Price MN, Goodrich J, Nawrocki EP, DeSantis TZ, Probst A, Andersen GL, Knight R, and Hugenholtz P. 2012. An improved Greengenes taxonomy with explicit ranks for ecological and evolutionary analyses of bacteria and archaea. ISME J. 6, 610-618.
  11. Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, Peplies J, and Glockner FO. 2013. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D590-596.
  12. Rognes T, Flouri T, Nichols B, Quince C, and Mahe F. 2016. VSEARCH: a versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ 4, e2584.
  13. Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, Hall JR, Hartmann M, Hollister EB, Lesniewski RA, Oakley BB, Parks DH, Robinson CJ, et al. 2009. Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75, 7537-7541.
  14. Segata N, Izard J, Waldron L, Gevers D, Miropolsky L, Garrett WS, and Huttenhower C. 2011. Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation. Genome Biol. 12, R60.
  15. Turnbaugh PJ, Ley RE, Mahowald MA, Magrini V, Mardis ER, and Gordon JI. 2006. An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest. Nature 444, 1027-1031.
  16. Vassallo G, Mirijello A, Ferrulli A, Antonelli M, Landolfi R, Gasbarrini A, and Addolorato G. 2015. Review article: Alcohol and gut microbiota - the possible role of gut microbiota modulation in the treatment of alcoholic liver disease. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 41, 917-927.
  17. Vital M, Karch A, and Pieper DH. 2017. Colonic butyrate-producing communities in humans: an overview using omics data. mSystems 2, e00130-17.
  18. Westcott SL and Schloss PD. 2017. OptiClust, an improved method for assigning amplicon-based sequence data to operational taxonomic units. mSphere 2, e00073-17.
  19. Wexler HM. 2007. Bacteroides: the good, the bad, and the nitty-gritty. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 20, 593-621.
  20. Wexler AG and Goodman AL. 2017. An insider's perspective: Bacteroides as a window into the microbiome. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 17026.