4.6 Article

Comparison of Collection Methods for Fecal Samples in Microbiome Studies

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 185, 期 2, 页码 115-123

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kww177

关键词

feces; microbiota; specimen collection

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health
  2. Gerstner Family Career Development Awards
  3. Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine
  4. National Institutes of Health [1R01CA179243]
  5. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  6. Sloan Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prospective cohort studies are needed to assess the relationship between the fecal microbiome and human health and disease. To evaluate fecal collection methods, we determined technical reproducibility, stability at ambient temperature, and accuracy of 5 fecal collection methods (no additive, 95% ethanol, RNAlater Stabilization Solution, fecal occult blood test cards, and fecal immunochemical test tubes). Fifty-two healthy volunteers provided fecal samples at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, in 2014. One set from each sample collection method was frozen immediately, and a second set was incubated at room temperature for 96 hours and then frozen. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated for the relative abundance of 3 phyla, 2 alpha diversity metrics, and 4 beta diversity metrics. Technical reproducibility was high, with ICCs for duplicate fecal samples between 0.64 and 1.00. Stability for most methods was generally high, although the ICCs were below 0.60 for 95% ethanol in metrics that were more sensitive to relative abundance. When compared with fecal samples that were frozen immediately, the ICCs were below 0.60 for the metrics that were sensitive to relative abundance; however, the remaining 2 alpha diversity and 3 beta diversitymetrics were all relatively accurate, with ICCs above 0.60. In conclusion, all fecal sample collection methods appear relatively reproducible, stable, and accurate. Future studies could use these collection methods for microbiome analyses.

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