4.4 Article

The use of different 16S rRNA gene variable regions in biogeographical studies

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY REPORTS
Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages 216-228

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1758-2229.13145

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing is commonly used to identify microbial diversity and composition. Different 16S rRNA gene amplified regions can result in differences in shared and unique taxa. However, multi-primer datasets can still be used to explore bacterial biogeographical patterns.
16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing is routinely used in environmental surveys to identify microbial diversity and composition of the samples of interest. The dominant sequencing technology of the past decade (Illumina) is based on the sequencing of 16S rRNA hypervariable regions. Online sequence data repositories, which represent an invaluable resource for investigating microbial distributional patterns across spatial, environmental or temporal scales, contain amplicon datasets from diverse 16S rRNA gene variable regions. However, the utility of these sequence datasets is potentially reduced by the use of different 16S rRNA gene amplified regions. By comparing 10 Antarctic soil samples sequenced for five different 16S rRNA amplicons, we explore whether sequence data derived from diverse 16S rRNA variable regions can be validly used as a resource for biogeographical studies. Patterns of shared and unique taxa differed among samples as a result of variable taxonomic resolutions of the assessed 16S rRNA variable regions. However, our analyses also suggest that the use of multi-primer datasets for biogeographical studies of the domain Bacteria is a valid approach to explore bacterial biogeographical patterns due to the preservation of bacterial taxonomic and diversity patterns across different variable region datasets. We deem composite datasets useful for biogeographical studies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available