Quantifying microbial communities with 454 pyrosequencing: does read abundance count?

Quantifying microbial communities with 454 pyrosequencing: does read abundance count? Pyrosequencing technologies have revolutionized how we describe and compare complex microbial communities. In 454 pyrosequencing data sets, the abundance of reads pertaining to taxa or phylotypes is commonly interpreted as a measure of genic or taxon abundance, useful for quantitative comparisons of community similarity. Potentially systematic biases inherent in sample processing, amplification and sequencing, however, may alter read abundance and reduce the utility of quantitative metrics. Here, we examine the relationship between read abundance and biological abundance in a sample of house dust spiked with known quantities and identities of fungi along a dilution gradient. Our results show one order of magnitude differences in read abundance among species. Precision of quantification within species along the dilution gradient varied from R2 of 0.96–0.54. Read‐quality based processing stringency profoundly affected the abundance of one species containing long homopolymers in a read orientation‐biased manner. Order‐level composition of background environmental fungal communities determined from pyrosequencing data was comparable with that derived from cloning and Sanger sequencing and was not biased by read orientation. We conclude that read abundance is approximately quantitative within species, but between‐species comparisons can be biased by innate sequence structure. Our results showed a trade off between sequence quality stringency and quantification. Careful consideration of sequence processing methods and community analyses are warranted when testing hypotheses using read abundance data. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Molecular Ecology Wiley

Quantifying microbial communities with 454 pyrosequencing: does read abundance count?

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/quantifying-microbial-communities-with-454-pyrosequencing-does-read-C1u7ebbghv
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2010 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri‐Food Canada
ISSN
0962-1083
eISSN
1365-294X
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04898.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Pyrosequencing technologies have revolutionized how we describe and compare complex microbial communities. In 454 pyrosequencing data sets, the abundance of reads pertaining to taxa or phylotypes is commonly interpreted as a measure of genic or taxon abundance, useful for quantitative comparisons of community similarity. Potentially systematic biases inherent in sample processing, amplification and sequencing, however, may alter read abundance and reduce the utility of quantitative metrics. Here, we examine the relationship between read abundance and biological abundance in a sample of house dust spiked with known quantities and identities of fungi along a dilution gradient. Our results show one order of magnitude differences in read abundance among species. Precision of quantification within species along the dilution gradient varied from R2 of 0.96–0.54. Read‐quality based processing stringency profoundly affected the abundance of one species containing long homopolymers in a read orientation‐biased manner. Order‐level composition of background environmental fungal communities determined from pyrosequencing data was comparable with that derived from cloning and Sanger sequencing and was not biased by read orientation. We conclude that read abundance is approximately quantitative within species, but between‐species comparisons can be biased by innate sequence structure. Our results showed a trade off between sequence quality stringency and quantification. Careful consideration of sequence processing methods and community analyses are warranted when testing hypotheses using read abundance data.

Journal

Molecular EcologyWiley

Published: Dec 1, 2010

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off