{"title":"Similarity in milk microbiota in replicates","authors":"Josef Dahlberg, Erik Pelve, Johan Dicksved","doi":"10.1002/mbo3.1383","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Receiving the same results from repeated analysis of the same sample is a basic principle in science. The inability to reproduce previously published results has led to discussions of a reproducibility crisis within science. For studies of microbial communities, the problem of reproducibility is more pronounced and has, in some fields, led to a discussion on the very existence of a constantly present microbiota. In this study, DNA from 44 bovine milk samples were extracted twice and the V3–V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene was sequenced in two separate runs. The FASTQ files from the two data sets were run through the same bioinformatics pipeline using the same settings and results from the two data sets were compared. Milk samples collected maximally 2 h apart were used as replicates and permitted comparisons to be made within the same run. Results show a significant difference in species richness between the two sequencing runs although Shannon and Simpson's diversity was the same. Multivariate analyses of all samples demonstrate that the sequencing run was a driver for variation. Direct comparison of similarity between samples and sequencing run showed an average similarity of 42%–45% depending on whether binary or abundance-based similarity indices were used. Within-run comparisons of milk samples collected maximally 2 h apart showed an average similarity of 39%–47% depending on the similarity index used and that similarity differed significantly between runs. We conclude that repeated DNA extraction and sequencing significantly can affect the results of a low microbial biomass microbiota study.</p>","PeriodicalId":18573,"journal":{"name":"MicrobiologyOpen","volume":"12 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/mbo3.1383","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MicrobiologyOpen","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mbo3.1383","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Receiving the same results from repeated analysis of the same sample is a basic principle in science. The inability to reproduce previously published results has led to discussions of a reproducibility crisis within science. For studies of microbial communities, the problem of reproducibility is more pronounced and has, in some fields, led to a discussion on the very existence of a constantly present microbiota. In this study, DNA from 44 bovine milk samples were extracted twice and the V3–V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene was sequenced in two separate runs. The FASTQ files from the two data sets were run through the same bioinformatics pipeline using the same settings and results from the two data sets were compared. Milk samples collected maximally 2 h apart were used as replicates and permitted comparisons to be made within the same run. Results show a significant difference in species richness between the two sequencing runs although Shannon and Simpson's diversity was the same. Multivariate analyses of all samples demonstrate that the sequencing run was a driver for variation. Direct comparison of similarity between samples and sequencing run showed an average similarity of 42%–45% depending on whether binary or abundance-based similarity indices were used. Within-run comparisons of milk samples collected maximally 2 h apart showed an average similarity of 39%–47% depending on the similarity index used and that similarity differed significantly between runs. We conclude that repeated DNA extraction and sequencing significantly can affect the results of a low microbial biomass microbiota study.
期刊介绍:
MicrobiologyOpen is a peer reviewed, fully open access, broad-scope, and interdisciplinary journal delivering rapid decisions and fast publication of microbial science, a field which is undergoing a profound and exciting evolution in this post-genomic era.
The journal aims to serve the research community by providing a vehicle for authors wishing to publish quality research in both fundamental and applied microbiology. Our goal is to publish articles that stimulate discussion and debate, as well as add to our knowledge base and further the understanding of microbial interactions and microbial processes.
MicrobiologyOpen gives prompt and equal consideration to articles reporting theoretical, experimental, applied, and descriptive work in all aspects of bacteriology, virology, mycology and protistology, including, but not limited to:
- agriculture
- antimicrobial resistance
- astrobiology
- biochemistry
- biotechnology
- cell and molecular biology
- clinical microbiology
- computational, systems, and synthetic microbiology
- environmental science
- evolutionary biology, ecology, and systematics
- food science and technology
- genetics and genomics
- geobiology and earth science
- host-microbe interactions
- infectious diseases
- natural products discovery
- pharmaceutical and medicinal chemistry
- physiology
- plant pathology
- veterinary microbiology
We will consider submissions across unicellular and cell-cluster organisms: prokaryotes (bacteria, archaea) and eukaryotes (fungi, protists, microalgae, lichens), as well as viruses and prions infecting or interacting with microorganisms, plants and animals, including genetic, biochemical, biophysical, bioinformatic and structural analyses.
The journal features Original Articles (including full Research articles, Method articles, and Short Communications), Commentaries, Reviews, and Editorials. Original papers must report well-conducted research with conclusions supported by the data presented in the article. We also support confirmatory research and aim to work with authors to meet reviewer expectations.
MicrobiologyOpen publishes articles submitted directly to the journal and those referred from other Wiley journals.