4.6 Article

Characterizing the Human Mycobiota: A Comparison of Small Subunit rRNA, ITS1, ITS2, and Large Subunit rRNA Genomic Targets

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02208

关键词

fungi; human microbiome; microbiota; mycobiota; internal transcribed spacer; next-generation sequencing

资金

  1. Garnett Passe and Rodney Williams Memorial Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Interest in the human microbiome has increased dramatically in the last decade. However, much of this research has focused on bacteria, while the composition and roles of their fungal counterparts remain less understood. Furthermore, a variety of methodological approaches have been applied, and the comparability between studies is unclear. This study compared four primer pairs targeting the small subunit (SSU) rRNA (18S), ITS1, ITS2, and large subunit (LSU) rRNA (26S) genomic regions for their ability to accurately characterize fungal communities typical of the human mycobiota. All four target regions of 21 individual fungal mock community taxa were capable of being amplified adequately and sequenced. Mixed mock community analyses revealed marked variability in the ability of each primer pair to accurately characterize a complex community. ITS target regions outperformed LSU and SSU. Of the ITS regions, ITS1 failed to generate sequences for Yarrowia lipolytica and all three Malassezia species when in a mixed community. These findings were further supported in studies of human sinonasal and mouse fecal samples. Based on these analyses, previous studies using ITS1, SSU, or LSU markers may omit key taxa that are identified by the ITS2 marker. Of methods commonly used in human mycobiota studies to date, we recommend selection of the ITS2 marker. Further investigation of more recently developed fungal primer options will be essential to ultimately determine the optimal methodological approach by which future human mycobiota studies ought to be standardized.

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