Allergy, Asthma & Respiratory Disease

  • 제6권5호
  • /
  • Pages.255-262
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 2288-0402(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-0410(eISSN)
대한천식알레르기학회 (The Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

분석 방법 변화에 따른 음성 대조군과 호흡기 검체 간 미생물 구성 차이 비교

Comparison of differences in microbial compositions between negative controls and subject samples with varying analysis configurations

  • 김효정 (가천대학교 일반대학원 융합의과학과) ;
  • 이상표 (가천대학교 길병원 호흡기알레르기내과) ;
  • 강신명 (가천대학교 길병원 호흡기알레르기내과) ;
  • 강성윤 (가천대학교 길병원 호흡기알레르기내과) ;
  • 정성원 (가천대학교 의예과 유전체의과학전공) ;
  • 이상민 (가천대학교 길병원 호흡기알레르기내과)
  • Kim, Hyojung (Department of Health Sciences and Technology, GAIHST, Gachon University) ;
  • Lee, Sang Pyo (Division of Pulmonology and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Gachon University Gil Medical Center) ;
  • Kang, Shin Myung (Division of Pulmonology and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Gachon University Gil Medical Center) ;
  • Kang, Sung-Yoon (Division of Pulmonology and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Gachon University Gil Medical Center) ;
  • Jung, Sungwon (Department of Genome Medicine and Science, College of Medicine, Gachon University) ;
  • Lee, Sang Min (Division of Pulmonology and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Gachon University Gil Medical Center)
  • 투고 : 2018.04.02
  • 심사 : 2018.05.09
  • 발행 : 2018.09.30
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: Identifying microbial communities with 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene sequencing is a popular approach in microbiome studies, and various software tools and data resources have been developed for microbial analysis. Our aim in this study is investigating various available software tools and reference sequence databases to compare their performance in differentiating subject samples and negative controls. Methods: We collected 4 negative control samples using various acquisition protocols, and 2 respiratory samples were acquired from a healthy subject also with different acquisition protocols. Quantitative methods were used to compare the results of taxonomy compositions of these 6 samples by varying the configuration of analysis software tools and reference databases. Results: The results of taxonomy assignments showed relatively little difference, regardless of pipeline configurations and reference databases. Nevertheless, the effect on the discrepancy was larger using different software configurations than using different reference databases. In recognizing different samples, the 4 negative controls were clearly separable from the 2 subject samples. Additionally, there is a tendency to differentiate samples from different acquisition protocols. Conclusion: Our results suggest little difference in microbial compositions between different software tools and reference databases, but certain configurations can improve the separability of samples. Changing software tools shows a greater impact on results than changing reference databases; thus, it is necessary to utilize appropriate configurations based on the objectives of studies.

키워드

과제정보

연구 과제 주관 기관 : Gachon University Gil Medical Center

참고문헌

  1. Staley JT, Konopka A. Measurement of in situ activities of nonphotosynthetic microorganisms in aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Annu Rev Microbiol 1985;39:321-46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.mi.39.100185.001541
  2. Zoetendal EG, Collier CT, Koike S, Mackie RI, Gaskins HR. Molecular ecological analysis of the gastrointestinal microbiota: a review. J Nutr 2004; 134:465-72. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/134.2.465
  3. NIH HMP Working Group, Peterson J, Garges S, Giovanni M, McInnes P, Wang L, et al. The NIH Human Microbiome Project. Genome Res 2009; 19:2317-23. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.096651.109
  4. Ley RE, Peterson DA, Gordon JI. Ecological and evolutionary forces shaping microbial diversity in the human intestine. Cell 2006;124:837-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2006.02.017
  5. Clemente JC, Ursell LK, Parfrey LW, Knight R. The impact of the gut microbiota on human health: an integrative view. Cell 2012;148:1258-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.01.035
  6. Lederberg J, McCray AT. 'Ome sweet' omics: a genealogical treasury of words. Scientist 2001;15:8-10
  7. Grice EA, Segre JA. The human microbiome: our second genome. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2012;13:151-70. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-090711-163814
  8. Weinstock GM. Genomic approaches to studying the human microbiota. Nature 2012;489:250-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11553
  9. Morgan XC, Huttenhower C. Chapter 12: human microbiome analysis. PLoS Comput Biol 2012;8:e1002808. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002808
  10. Armougom F, Raoult D. Exploring microbial diversity using 16S rRNA high-throughput methods. J Comput Sci Syst Biol 2009;2:74-92.
  11. Clarridge JE 3rd. Impact of 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis for identification of bacteria on clinical microbiology and infectious diseases. Clin Microbiol Rev 2004;17:840-62. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.17.4.840-862.2004
  12. Balvociute M, Huson DH. SILVA, RDP, Greengenes, NCBI and OTT - how do these taxonomies compare? BMC Genomics 2017;18(Suppl 2):114. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-017-3501-4
  13. Schloss PD. Application of a database-independent approach to assess the quality of operational taxonomic unit picking methods. mSystems 2016; 1(2). pii: e00027-16.
  14. Plummer E, Twin J, Bulach DM, Garland SM, Tabrizi SN. A comparison of three bioinformatics pipelines for the analysis of preterm gut microbiota using 16S rRNA gene sequencing data. J Proteomics Bioinform 2015; 8:283-91.
  15. Masella AP, Bartram AK, Truszkowski JM, Brown DG, Neufeld JD. PANDAseq: paired-end assembler for illumina sequences. BMC Bioinformatics 2012;13:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-13-31
  16. Rognes T, Flouri T, Nichols B, Quince C, Mahe F. VSEARCH: a versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ 2016;4:e2584. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2584
  17. Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK, et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods 2010;7:335-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.f.303
  18. Edgar RC. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 2010;26:2460-1. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq461
  19. DeSantis TZ, Hugenholtz P, Larsen N, Rojas M, Brodie EL, Keller K, et al. Greengenes, a chimera-checked 16S rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB. Appl Environ Microbiol 2006;72:5069-72. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03006-05
  20. Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res 2013;41(Database issue):D590-6.
  21. Magoc T, Salzberg SL. FLASH: fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 2011;27:2957-63. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr507
  22. Li W, Godzik A. Cd-hit: a fast program for clustering and comparing large sets of protein or nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics 2006;22:1658-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btl158
  23. Lozupone C, Knight R. UniFrac: a new phylogenetic method for comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 2005;71:8228-35. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.12.8228-8235.2005