4.7 Article

Primers matter: Influence of the primer selection on human fungal detection using high throughput sequencing

Journal

GUT MICROBES
Volume 14, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/19490976.2022.2110638

Keywords

Mycobiome; ITS; 18S; sequencing; fungi

Funding

  1. European Commission through the European funds for regional development (EFRE)
  2. regional Ministry of Economy, Science and Digitalization of Saxony-Anhalt as part of the Autonomy in old Age (AiA) research group for LiLife Project [ZS/2018/11/95324]
  3. European Regional Development Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Research on microbiota, particularly fungi, in disease development has gained increasing attention. This study compares the performance of various primers in sequencing the 18S and ITS regions, aiming to identify the most suitable primers for fungal detection in human fecal samples.
Microbiota research has received an increasing attention for its role in disease development and fungi are considered as one of the key players in the microbial niche. Various sequencing approaches have been applied to uncover the role of fungal community in health and disease; however, little is known on the performance of various primers and comparability between the studies. Motivated by the recent publications, we performed a systematic comparison of the 18S and ITS regions to identify the impact of various primers on the sequencing results. Using four pairs of primers extensively used in literature, fungal community was retrieve from 25 fecal samples, and applying high throughput sequencing; and the results were compared in order to select the most suitable primers for fungal detection in human fecal samples. Considering the high variability between samples, primers described in the Earth microbiome project detected the broadest fungal spectrum suggesting its superior performance in mycobiome research.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available