James C Kosmopoulos, Katherine M Klier, Marguerite V Langwig, Patricia Q Tran, Karthik Anantharaman
{"title":"病毒组与混合群落元基因组:方法的选择决定病毒群落生态学的解释。","authors":"James C Kosmopoulos, Katherine M Klier, Marguerite V Langwig, Patricia Q Tran, Karthik Anantharaman","doi":"10.1186/s40168-024-01905-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Viruses, the majority of which are uncultivated, are among the most abundant biological entities on Earth. From altering microbial physiology to driving community dynamics, viruses are fundamental members of microbiomes. While the number of studies leveraging viral metagenomics (viromics) for studying uncultivated viruses is growing, standards for viromics research are lacking. Viromics can utilize computational discovery of viruses from total metagenomes of all community members (hereafter metagenomes) or use physical separation of virus-specific fractions (hereafter viromes). However, differences in the recovery and interpretation of viruses from metagenomes and viromes obtained from the same samples remain understudied.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Here, we compare viral communities from paired viromes and metagenomes obtained from 60 diverse samples across human gut, soil, freshwater, and marine ecosystems. Overall, viral communities obtained from viromes had greater species richness and total viral genome abundances than those obtained from metagenomes, although there were some exceptions. Despite this, metagenomes still contained many viral genomes not detected in viromes. We also found notable differences in the predicted lytic state of viruses detected in viromes vs metagenomes at the time of sequencing. Other forms of variation observed include genome presence/absence, genome quality, and encoded protein content between viromes and metagenomes, but the magnitude of these differences varied by environment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, our results show that the choice of method can lead to differing interpretations of viral community ecology. We suggest that the choice of whether to target a metagenome or virome to study viral communities should be dependent on the environmental context and ecological questions being asked. However, our overall recommendation to researchers investigating viral ecology and evolution is to pair both approaches to maximize their respective benefits. Video Abstract.</p>","PeriodicalId":18447,"journal":{"name":"Microbiome","volume":"12 1","pages":"195"},"PeriodicalIF":13.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11460016/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Viromes vs. mixed community metagenomes: choice of method dictates interpretation of viral community ecology.\",\"authors\":\"James C Kosmopoulos, Katherine M Klier, Marguerite V Langwig, Patricia Q Tran, Karthik Anantharaman\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40168-024-01905-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Viruses, the majority of which are uncultivated, are among the most abundant biological entities on Earth. From altering microbial physiology to driving community dynamics, viruses are fundamental members of microbiomes. While the number of studies leveraging viral metagenomics (viromics) for studying uncultivated viruses is growing, standards for viromics research are lacking. Viromics can utilize computational discovery of viruses from total metagenomes of all community members (hereafter metagenomes) or use physical separation of virus-specific fractions (hereafter viromes). However, differences in the recovery and interpretation of viruses from metagenomes and viromes obtained from the same samples remain understudied.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Here, we compare viral communities from paired viromes and metagenomes obtained from 60 diverse samples across human gut, soil, freshwater, and marine ecosystems. Overall, viral communities obtained from viromes had greater species richness and total viral genome abundances than those obtained from metagenomes, although there were some exceptions. Despite this, metagenomes still contained many viral genomes not detected in viromes. We also found notable differences in the predicted lytic state of viruses detected in viromes vs metagenomes at the time of sequencing. Other forms of variation observed include genome presence/absence, genome quality, and encoded protein content between viromes and metagenomes, but the magnitude of these differences varied by environment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, our results show that the choice of method can lead to differing interpretations of viral community ecology. We suggest that the choice of whether to target a metagenome or virome to study viral communities should be dependent on the environmental context and ecological questions being asked. However, our overall recommendation to researchers investigating viral ecology and evolution is to pair both approaches to maximize their respective benefits. Video Abstract.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18447,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Microbiome\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"195\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":13.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11460016/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Microbiome\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-024-01905-x\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Microbiome","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-024-01905-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Viromes vs. mixed community metagenomes: choice of method dictates interpretation of viral community ecology.
Background: Viruses, the majority of which are uncultivated, are among the most abundant biological entities on Earth. From altering microbial physiology to driving community dynamics, viruses are fundamental members of microbiomes. While the number of studies leveraging viral metagenomics (viromics) for studying uncultivated viruses is growing, standards for viromics research are lacking. Viromics can utilize computational discovery of viruses from total metagenomes of all community members (hereafter metagenomes) or use physical separation of virus-specific fractions (hereafter viromes). However, differences in the recovery and interpretation of viruses from metagenomes and viromes obtained from the same samples remain understudied.
Results: Here, we compare viral communities from paired viromes and metagenomes obtained from 60 diverse samples across human gut, soil, freshwater, and marine ecosystems. Overall, viral communities obtained from viromes had greater species richness and total viral genome abundances than those obtained from metagenomes, although there were some exceptions. Despite this, metagenomes still contained many viral genomes not detected in viromes. We also found notable differences in the predicted lytic state of viruses detected in viromes vs metagenomes at the time of sequencing. Other forms of variation observed include genome presence/absence, genome quality, and encoded protein content between viromes and metagenomes, but the magnitude of these differences varied by environment.
Conclusions: Overall, our results show that the choice of method can lead to differing interpretations of viral community ecology. We suggest that the choice of whether to target a metagenome or virome to study viral communities should be dependent on the environmental context and ecological questions being asked. However, our overall recommendation to researchers investigating viral ecology and evolution is to pair both approaches to maximize their respective benefits. Video Abstract.
期刊介绍:
Microbiome is a journal that focuses on studies of microbiomes in humans, animals, plants, and the environment. It covers both natural and manipulated microbiomes, such as those in agriculture. The journal is interested in research that uses meta-omics approaches or novel bioinformatics tools and emphasizes the community/host interaction and structure-function relationship within the microbiome. Studies that go beyond descriptive omics surveys and include experimental or theoretical approaches will be considered for publication. The journal also encourages research that establishes cause and effect relationships and supports proposed microbiome functions. However, studies of individual microbial isolates/species without exploring their impact on the host or the complex microbiome structures and functions will not be considered for publication. Microbiome is indexed in BIOSIS, Current Contents, DOAJ, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, PubMed Central, and Science Citations Index Expanded.