4.5 Article

Characterization of the gut microbiome in epidemiologic studies: the multiethnic cohort experience

Journal

ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 26, Issue 5, Pages 373-379

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2016.02.009

Keywords

Microbiome; Gut bacteria; Stool; Multiethnic Cohort

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [P01 CA168530, T32 CA009168, U01 CA164973]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The development of next-generation sequencing and accompanying bioinformatics tools has revolutionized characterization of microbial communities. As interest grows in the role of the human microbiome in health and disease, so does the need for well-powered, robustly designed epidemiologic studies. Here, we discuss sources of bias that can arise in gut microbiome research. Methods: Research comparing methods of specimen collection, preservation, processing, and analysis of gut microbiome samples is reviewed. Although selected studies are primarily based on the gut, many of the same principles are applicable to samples derived from other anatomical sites. Methods for participant recruitment and sampling of the gut microbiome implemented in an ongoing population-based study, the Multiethnic Cohort (MEC), are also described. Results: Variation in methodologies can influence the results of human microbiome studies. To help minimize bias, techniques such as sample homogenization, addition of internal standards, and quality filtering should be adopted in protocols. Within the MEC, participant response rates to stool sample collection were comparable to other studies, and in-home stool sample collection yields sufficient high quality DNA for gut microbiome analysis. Conclusions: Application of standardized and quality controlled methods in human microbiome studies is necessary to ensure data quality and comparability among studies. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available