Department of Psychiatry, Radboudumc, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, P.O. Box 9101 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
UMR 454 MEDIS UCA-INRA, Université Clermont Auvergne, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
BMC Microbiol. 2018 Sep 6;18(1):110. doi: 10.1186/s12866-018-1249-x.
The effects of gut microbiota on human traits are expected to be small to moderate and adding the complexity of the human diseases, microbiome research demands big sample sizes. Fecal samples for such studies are mostly self-collected by participants at home. This imposes an extra level of complexity as sample collection and storage can be challenging. Effective, low-burden collection and storage methods allowing fecal samples to be transported properly and ensuring optimal quality and quantity of bacterial DNA for upstream analyses are necessary. Moreover, accurate assessment of the microbiome composition also depends on bacterial DNA extraction method. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and efficiency of the OMNIgene•GUT kit as a participant-fecal friendly collection method (storage at room temperature for 24 h (O24h) or 7 days (O7d)) in comparison to the standard collection method (Fresh, storage at 4 °C for less than 24 h) in terms of amount of variability and information content accounting for two common DNA extraction methods.
Fourteen fecal samples were collected from healthy individuals (7 males, 7 females). Collection and storage methods did not differ significantly in terms of DNA concentration and Shannon diversity index. Phylum relative abundance showed significant differences for Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria and Cyanobacteria. The differences were observed between control (Fresh) and O24h methods, but not between Fresh and O7d. These differences were not seen when performing bacterial DNA quantification based on three bacterial groups: Bacteroides spp., Bifidobacterium spp. and Clostridium cluster IV, which represent three major phyla: Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria and Firmicutes respectively. The two DNA extraction methods differ in terms of DNA quantity, quality, bacterial diversity and bacterial relative abundance. Furthermore, principal component analysis revealed differences in microbial structure, which are driven by the DNA extraction methods more than the collection/storage methods.
Our results have highlighted the potential of using the OMNIgene•GUT kit for collection and storage at ambient temperature, which is convenient for studies aiming to collect large samples by giving participants the possibility to send samples by post. Importantly, we revealed that the choice of DNA extraction method have an impact on the microbiome profiling.
肠道微生物群对人类特征的影响预计是小到中等的,再加上人类疾病的复杂性,微生物组研究需要大的样本量。此类研究的粪便样本主要由参与者在家中自行采集。这增加了样本采集和储存的复杂性,因为这可能具有挑战性。有效的、低负担的采集和储存方法,可确保粪便样本能够正确运输,并确保用于上游分析的细菌 DNA 具有最佳的质量和数量,这是必要的。此外,微生物组组成的准确评估还取决于细菌 DNA 提取方法。本研究旨在评估 OMNIgene•GUT 试剂盒作为一种参与者友好的粪便采集方法(在室温下储存 24 小时(O24h)或 7 天(O7d))的可靠性和效率,与标准采集方法(新鲜,在 4°C 下储存不到 24 小时)相比,考虑到两种常见的 DNA 提取方法,评估其在变异量和信息量方面的差异。
从 14 名健康个体中采集了粪便样本(7 名男性,7 名女性)。在 DNA 浓度和 Shannon 多样性指数方面,采集和储存方法没有显著差异。门相对丰度在拟杆菌门、放线菌门和蓝藻门之间存在显著差异。这些差异在对照(新鲜)和 O24h 方法之间观察到,但在新鲜和 O7d 之间没有观察到。当基于三个细菌群(拟杆菌属、双歧杆菌属和梭菌簇 IV)进行细菌 DNA 定量时,没有观察到这些差异,这三个细菌群分别代表三个主要的门:拟杆菌门、放线菌门和厚壁菌门。两种 DNA 提取方法在 DNA 数量、质量、细菌多样性和细菌相对丰度方面存在差异。此外,主成分分析显示微生物结构存在差异,这主要是由 DNA 提取方法而不是采集/储存方法驱动的。
我们的结果强调了使用 OMNIgene•GUT 试剂盒在环境温度下进行采集和储存的潜力,这对于通过让参与者有可能通过邮寄发送样本来收集大量样本的研究是方便的。重要的是,我们揭示了 DNA 提取方法的选择会对微生物组分析产生影响。