4.6 Article

Correlation of rRNA gene amplicon pyrosequencing and bacterial culture for microbial compositional analysis of faecal samples from elderly Irish subjects

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 111, 期 2, 页码 467-473

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2011.05067.x

关键词

bacterial culture; bifidobacteria; elderly Irish; lactobacilli; sequencing

资金

  1. Government of Ireland's Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
  2. Health Research Board, through the Food and Health Initiative

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: The aim of this investigation was to establish the degree of correlation between measurements from culture-dependent microbiological techniques and from next generation sequencing technologies. Methods and Results: Data generated by both techniques were collected from faecal samples from 185 elderly Irish people involved in the ongoing ELDER-MET study (http://eldermet.ucc.ie). The results for three groups of intestinal bacteria were compared. Bifidobacterium sp., Lactobacillus sp. and Enterobacteriaceae were enumerated on selective media through culture-dependent techniques, whereas proportions of these bacteria were determined through sequencing technology against the background of other bacteria. The Spearman's rank correlation coefficient determined a good correlation between results from culture-dependent microbiology and culture-independent techniques for all three bacterial groups assessed (correlation coefficients for Bifidobacterium sp., Lactobacillus sp. and Enterobacteriaceae were 0.380, 0.366 and 0.437, respectively). Conclusion: Correlation between the two methods implies that a single method is capable of profiling intestinal Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus and Enterobacteriaceae populations. However, both methods have advantages that justify their use in tandem. Significance and Impact of the Study: This is the first extensive study to compare bacterial counts from culture-dependent microbiological techniques and from next generation sequencing technologies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据