4.8 Article

A human gut bacterial genome and culture collection for improved metagenomic analyses

期刊

NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 37, 期 2, 页码 186-+

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41587-018-0009-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [098051]
  2. United Kingdom Medical Research Council [PF451]
  3. BBSRC [BB/M011755/1]
  4. European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI)
  5. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council [1141564, 1091097]
  6. Victorian Government's Operational Infrastructure Support Program
  7. Medical Research Council Doctoral Training Grant [MR/J004111/1]
  8. Wellcome Sanger Institute Pathogen Informatics and Core Sequencing Teams
  9. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1141564] Funding Source: NHMRC
  10. BBSRC [BB/M011755/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding gut microbiome functions requires cultivated bacteria for experimental validation and reference bacterial genome sequences to interpret metagenome datasets and guide functional analyses. We present the Human Gastrointestinal Bacteria Culture Collection (HBC), a comprehensive set of 737 whole-genome-sequenced bacterial isolates, representing 273 species (105 novel species) from 31 families found in the human gastrointestinal microbiota. The HBC increases the number of bacterial genomes derived from human gastrointestinal microbiota by 37%. The resulting global Human Gastrointestinal Bacteria Genome Collection (HGG) classifies 83% of genera by abundance across 13,490 shotgun-sequenced metagenomic samples, improves taxonomic classification by 61% compared to the Human Microbiome Project (HMP) genome collection and achieves subspecies-level classification for almost 50% of sequences. The improved resource of gastrointestinal bacterial reference sequences circumvents dependence on de novo assembly of metagenomes and enables accurate and cost-effective shotgun metagenomic analyses of human gastrointestinal microbiota.

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

4.8
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