Thomas M Kuntz, Ling Liu, Kai Wang, Christine Everett, A Heather Eliassen, Walter C Willett, Rashmi Sinha, Andrew T Chan, Eric B Rimm, Wendy S Garrett, Nicola Segata, Gianmarco Piccinno, Curtis Huttenhower, Xochitl Morgan, Mingyang Song
{"title":"Comparing the metagenomic performance of stools collected from custom cards and 95% ethanol in epidemiologic studies.","authors":"Thomas M Kuntz, Ling Liu, Kai Wang, Christine Everett, A Heather Eliassen, Walter C Willett, Rashmi Sinha, Andrew T Chan, Eric B Rimm, Wendy S Garrett, Nicola Segata, Gianmarco Piccinno, Curtis Huttenhower, Xochitl Morgan, Mingyang Song","doi":"10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-25-0157","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background Stool cards have been used for microbiome assessment in epidemiological studies. Methods We compared shotgun metagenomic sequencing from 32 participants who self-collected stool samples from the same bowel movement using a custom stool card vs. a collection tube with 95% ethanol fixative in the Nurses' Health Study II. We evaluated the agreement between methods at both the whole-community and individual species levels. To contextualize the comparison for disease association studies, we assessed the performance of the two collection methods for differentiating colorectal cancer-associated taxa. Results Overall, metagenomes from cards and 95% ethanol were highly correlated within individuals. No difference was found in alpha diversity and only ~1% of variation in beta diversity was explained by the collection method. At the species level, while the relative abundances were highly correlated between card and ethanol sample pairs (Spearman rho = 0.96), 10 (out of 239) species showed a differential abundance in paired samples, including overrepresentation of Escherichia coli and underrepresentation of three Streptococcus species in cards compared with ethanol. Among a set of 99 colorectal cancer-associated species, 4 showed differential abundances between collection methods; however, this number was consistent with what would be expected by chance. Conclusions Metagenomic sequencing using stool samples self-collected using stool cards or 95% ethanol yielded largely consistent results, although differential abundances were observed for a small number of individual species. Impact Stool cards can be a cost-effective alternative to collect stool samples for metagenomic sequencing in epidemiologic studies but warrant additional considerations for data analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":520580,"journal":{"name":"Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-25-0157","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background Stool cards have been used for microbiome assessment in epidemiological studies. Methods We compared shotgun metagenomic sequencing from 32 participants who self-collected stool samples from the same bowel movement using a custom stool card vs. a collection tube with 95% ethanol fixative in the Nurses' Health Study II. We evaluated the agreement between methods at both the whole-community and individual species levels. To contextualize the comparison for disease association studies, we assessed the performance of the two collection methods for differentiating colorectal cancer-associated taxa. Results Overall, metagenomes from cards and 95% ethanol were highly correlated within individuals. No difference was found in alpha diversity and only ~1% of variation in beta diversity was explained by the collection method. At the species level, while the relative abundances were highly correlated between card and ethanol sample pairs (Spearman rho = 0.96), 10 (out of 239) species showed a differential abundance in paired samples, including overrepresentation of Escherichia coli and underrepresentation of three Streptococcus species in cards compared with ethanol. Among a set of 99 colorectal cancer-associated species, 4 showed differential abundances between collection methods; however, this number was consistent with what would be expected by chance. Conclusions Metagenomic sequencing using stool samples self-collected using stool cards or 95% ethanol yielded largely consistent results, although differential abundances were observed for a small number of individual species. Impact Stool cards can be a cost-effective alternative to collect stool samples for metagenomic sequencing in epidemiologic studies but warrant additional considerations for data analysis.