Back to Search
Start Over
Cross-comparison of gut metagenomic profiling strategies.
- Source :
-
Communications Biology . 11/6/2024, Vol. 7 Issue 1, p1-22. 22p. - Publication Year :
- 2024
-
Abstract
- The rapid advancements in sequencing technologies and bioinformatics have enabled metagenomic research of complex microbial systems, but reliable results depend on consistent laboratory and bioinformatics approaches. Current efforts to identify best practices often focus on optimizing specific steps, making it challenging to understand the influence of each stage on microbial population analysis and compare data across studies. This study evaluated DNA extraction, library construction methodologies, sequencing platforms, and computational approaches using a dog stool sample, two synthetic microbial community mixtures, and various sequencing data sources. Our work, the most comprehensive evaluation of metagenomic methods to date. We developed a software tool, termed minitax, which provides consistent results across the range of platforms and methodologies. Our findings showed that the Zymo Research Quick-DNA HMW MagBead Kit, Illumina DNA Prep library preparation method, and the minitax bioinformatics tool were the most effective for high-quality microbial diversity analysis. However, the effectiveness of pipelines or method combinations is sample-specific, making it difficult to identify a universally optimal approach. Therefore, employing multiple approaches is crucial for obtaining reliable outcomes in microbial systems. Evaluation of metagenomic methods for gut microbiome profiling using dog stool and microbial standards, leading to the development of minitax tool. Optimal wetlab and analysis pipelines are recommended for reliable crossplatform microbiome studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 23993642
- Volume :
- 7
- Issue :
- 1
- Database :
- Academic Search Index
- Journal :
- Communications Biology
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 180734114
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-024-07158-6