对毛坯的冲裁:很少有昆虫微生物群研究控制污染物。

IF 5.1 1区 生物学 Q1 MICROBIOLOGY
mBio Pub Date : 2025-04-09 Epub Date: 2025-02-25 DOI:10.1128/mbio.02658-24
Elisabeth M Williamson, Tobin J Hammer, Katja Hogendoorn, Raphael Eisenhofer
{"title":"对毛坯的冲裁:很少有昆虫微生物群研究控制污染物。","authors":"Elisabeth M Williamson, Tobin J Hammer, Katja Hogendoorn, Raphael Eisenhofer","doi":"10.1128/mbio.02658-24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research on insect-microbe relationships is booming, with DNA sequencing being the most commonly used method to describe insect microbiota. However, sequencing is vulnerable to contamination, especially when the sample has low microbial biomass. Such low-biomass samples are common across insect taxa, developmental stages, and tissue types. Identifying putative contaminants is essential to distinguish between true microbiota and introduced contaminant DNA. It is therefore important that studies control for contamination, but how often this is done is unknown. To investigate the status quo of contamination control, we undertook a systematic literature review to quantify the prevalence of negative control usage and contamination control across the literature on insect microbiota (specifically bacterial communities) over a 10 year period. Two-thirds of the 243 insect microbiota studies evaluated had not included blanks (negative controls), and only 13.6% of the studies sequenced these blanks and controlled for contamination in their samples. Our findings highlight a major lack of contamination control in the field of insect microbiota research. This result suggests that a number of microbes reported in the literature may be contaminants as opposed to insect-associated microbiota and that more rigorous contamination control is needed to improve research reliability, validity, and reproducibility. Based on our findings, we recommend the previously developed guidelines outlined in the RIDE checklist, with the addition of one more guideline. We refer to this as the RIDES checklist, which stands for Report methodology, Include negative controls, Determine the level of contamination, Explore contamination downstream, and State the amount of off-target amplification.IMPORTANCEOur systematic review reveals a major lack of methodological rigor within the field of research on insect-associated microbiota. The small percentage of studies that control for contamination suggests that an unknown but potentially considerable number of bacteria reported in the literature could be contaminants. The implication of this finding is that true microbiota may be masked or misrepresented, especially in insects with low microbial biomass.</p>","PeriodicalId":18315,"journal":{"name":"mBio","volume":" ","pages":"e0265824"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Blanking on blanks: few insect microbiota studies control for contaminants.\",\"authors\":\"Elisabeth M Williamson, Tobin J Hammer, Katja Hogendoorn, Raphael Eisenhofer\",\"doi\":\"10.1128/mbio.02658-24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Research on insect-microbe relationships is booming, with DNA sequencing being the most commonly used method to describe insect microbiota. However, sequencing is vulnerable to contamination, especially when the sample has low microbial biomass. Such low-biomass samples are common across insect taxa, developmental stages, and tissue types. Identifying putative contaminants is essential to distinguish between true microbiota and introduced contaminant DNA. It is therefore important that studies control for contamination, but how often this is done is unknown. To investigate the status quo of contamination control, we undertook a systematic literature review to quantify the prevalence of negative control usage and contamination control across the literature on insect microbiota (specifically bacterial communities) over a 10 year period. Two-thirds of the 243 insect microbiota studies evaluated had not included blanks (negative controls), and only 13.6% of the studies sequenced these blanks and controlled for contamination in their samples. Our findings highlight a major lack of contamination control in the field of insect microbiota research. This result suggests that a number of microbes reported in the literature may be contaminants as opposed to insect-associated microbiota and that more rigorous contamination control is needed to improve research reliability, validity, and reproducibility. Based on our findings, we recommend the previously developed guidelines outlined in the RIDE checklist, with the addition of one more guideline. We refer to this as the RIDES checklist, which stands for Report methodology, Include negative controls, Determine the level of contamination, Explore contamination downstream, and State the amount of off-target amplification.IMPORTANCEOur systematic review reveals a major lack of methodological rigor within the field of research on insect-associated microbiota. The small percentage of studies that control for contamination suggests that an unknown but potentially considerable number of bacteria reported in the literature could be contaminants. The implication of this finding is that true microbiota may be masked or misrepresented, especially in insects with low microbial biomass.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18315,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"mBio\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e0265824\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"mBio\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.02658-24\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"mBio","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.02658-24","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

昆虫-微生物关系的研究正在蓬勃发展,DNA测序是描述昆虫微生物群最常用的方法。然而,测序容易受到污染,特别是当样品的微生物量低时。这种低生物量样本在昆虫分类群、发育阶段和组织类型中都很常见。识别假定的污染物对于区分真正的微生物群和引入的污染物DNA至关重要。因此,研究控制污染是很重要的,但多久做一次是未知的。为了调查污染控制的现状,我们进行了系统的文献综述,量化了10年来关于昆虫微生物群(特别是细菌群落)的文献中消极控制使用和污染控制的流行程度。在243项被评估的昆虫微生物群研究中,有三分之二没有包括空白(阴性对照),只有13.6%的研究对这些空白进行了测序,并对样本中的污染进行了控制。我们的发现突出了昆虫微生物群研究领域污染控制的主要缺乏。这一结果表明,文献中报道的许多微生物可能是污染物,而不是与昆虫相关的微生物群,需要更严格的污染控制,以提高研究的可靠性、有效性和可重复性。根据我们的研究结果,我们建议采用RIDE检查表中列出的先前制定的指南,并增加一个指南。我们将此称为RIDES检查表,它代表报告方法,包括阴性控制,确定污染水平,探索下游污染,并说明脱靶扩增的数量。我们的系统综述揭示了在昆虫相关微生物群研究领域中主要缺乏方法学严谨性。控制污染的研究比例很小,这表明文献中报道的未知但可能相当多的细菌可能是污染物。这一发现的含义是,真正的微生物群可能被掩盖或歪曲,特别是在微生物生物量低的昆虫中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Blanking on blanks: few insect microbiota studies control for contaminants.

Research on insect-microbe relationships is booming, with DNA sequencing being the most commonly used method to describe insect microbiota. However, sequencing is vulnerable to contamination, especially when the sample has low microbial biomass. Such low-biomass samples are common across insect taxa, developmental stages, and tissue types. Identifying putative contaminants is essential to distinguish between true microbiota and introduced contaminant DNA. It is therefore important that studies control for contamination, but how often this is done is unknown. To investigate the status quo of contamination control, we undertook a systematic literature review to quantify the prevalence of negative control usage and contamination control across the literature on insect microbiota (specifically bacterial communities) over a 10 year period. Two-thirds of the 243 insect microbiota studies evaluated had not included blanks (negative controls), and only 13.6% of the studies sequenced these blanks and controlled for contamination in their samples. Our findings highlight a major lack of contamination control in the field of insect microbiota research. This result suggests that a number of microbes reported in the literature may be contaminants as opposed to insect-associated microbiota and that more rigorous contamination control is needed to improve research reliability, validity, and reproducibility. Based on our findings, we recommend the previously developed guidelines outlined in the RIDE checklist, with the addition of one more guideline. We refer to this as the RIDES checklist, which stands for Report methodology, Include negative controls, Determine the level of contamination, Explore contamination downstream, and State the amount of off-target amplification.IMPORTANCEOur systematic review reveals a major lack of methodological rigor within the field of research on insect-associated microbiota. The small percentage of studies that control for contamination suggests that an unknown but potentially considerable number of bacteria reported in the literature could be contaminants. The implication of this finding is that true microbiota may be masked or misrepresented, especially in insects with low microbial biomass.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
mBio
mBio MICROBIOLOGY-
CiteScore
10.50
自引率
3.10%
发文量
762
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: mBio® is ASM''s first broad-scope, online-only, open access journal. mBio offers streamlined review and publication of the best research in microbiology and allied fields.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信