Comparing the metagenomic performance of stools collected from custom cards and 95% ethanol in epidemiologic studies.

IF 3.4
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.

比较流行病学研究中从定制卡片和95%乙醇中收集的粪便的宏基因组性能。
粪便卡片已被用于流行病学研究中的微生物组评估。方法:在护士健康研究II中,我们比较了32名参与者的霰弹枪元基因组测序,这些参与者使用自定义大便卡和收集管收集95%乙醇固定物从同一排便中收集粪便样本。我们在整个群落和单个物种水平上评估了两种方法的一致性。为了比较疾病相关研究的背景,我们评估了两种收集方法在区分结直肠癌相关分类群方面的性能。结果总体而言,卡片和95%乙醇的宏基因组在个体内高度相关。α多样性没有发现差异,β多样性只有1%的变异可以用收集方法解释。在物种水平上,虽然卡片和乙醇样品对之间的相对丰度高度相关(Spearman rho = 0.96),但239个物种中有10个物种在成对样品中表现出不同的丰度,包括大肠杆菌的过度代表和三种链球菌的代表性不足。在99种结直肠癌相关物种中,4种在不同的收集方法中存在丰度差异;然而,这个数字与偶然的预期是一致的。结论使用粪便卡或95%乙醇自行收集的粪便样本进行宏基因组测序,结果基本一致,尽管在少数个体物种中观察到不同的丰度。在流行病学研究中,冲击性粪便卡是收集粪便样本进行宏基因组测序的一种具有成本效益的替代方法,但需要对数据分析进行额外考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信