4.8 Review

Optimizing methods and dodging pitfalls in microbiome research

期刊

MICROBIOME
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s40168-017-0267-5

关键词

Metagenomics; 16S rRNA gene; Shotgun metagenomics; Environmental contamination; Methods; Study design; Best practices

资金

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [P30 AI 045008, T32 AI007632]
  2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [R01 HL113252]
  3. Pennsylvania Department of Health SAP [4100068710]
  4. Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America Career Development Award [3276]
  5. National Institutes of Health [1T32DK101371-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research on the human microbiome has yielded numerous insights into health and disease, but also has resulted in a wealth of experimental artifacts. Here, we present suggestions for optimizing experimental design and avoiding known pitfalls, organized in the typical order in which studies are carried out. We first review best practices in experimental design and introduce common confounders such as age, diet, antibiotic use, pet ownership, longitudinal instability, and microbial sharing during cohousing in animal studies. Typically, samples will need to be stored, so we provide data on best practices for several sample types. We then discuss design and analysis of positive and negative controls, which should always be run with experimental samples. We introduce a convenient set of non-biological DNA sequences that can be useful as positive controls for high-volume analysis. Careful analysis of negative and positive controls is particularly important in studies of samples with low microbial biomass, where contamination can comprise most or all of a sample. Lastly, we summarize approaches to enhancing experimental robustness by careful control of multiple comparisons and to comparing discovery and validation cohorts. We hope the experimental tactics summarized here will help researchers in this exciting field advance their studies efficiently while avoiding errors.

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