4.8 Article

Reagent and laboratory contamination can critically impact sequence-based microbiome analyses

期刊

BMC BIOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s12915-014-0087-z

关键词

Contamination; Microbiome; Microbiota; Metagenomics; 16S rRNA

类别

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [098051, 083735/Z/07/Z]
  2. Wellcome Trust Centre for Respiratory Infection Basic Science Fellowship
  3. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
  4. Medical Research Council Special Training Fellowship in Biomedical Informatics
  5. Scottish Government Rural and Environmental Science and Analysis Service (RESAS)
  6. Wellcome Trust [096964/Z/11/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust
  7. MRC [MR/J014370/1, MR/L015080/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Medical Research Council [MR/J014370/1, MR/L015080/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Wellcome Trust [096964/Z/11/Z] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The study of microbial communities has been revolutionised in recent years by the widespread adoption of culture independent analytical techniques such as 16S rRNA gene sequencing and metagenomics. One potential confounder of these sequence-based approaches is the presence of contamination in DNA extraction kits and other laboratory reagents. Results: In this study we demonstrate that contaminating DNA is ubiquitous in commonly used DNA extraction kits and other laboratory reagents, varies greatly in composition between different kits and kit batches, and that this contamination critically impacts results obtained from samples containing a low microbial biomass. Contamination impacts both PCR-based 16S rRNA gene surveys and shotgun metagenomics. We provide an extensive list of potential contaminating genera, and guidelines on how to mitigate the effects of contamination. Conclusions: These results suggest that caution should be advised when applying sequence-based techniques to the study of microbiota present in low biomass environments. Concurrent sequencing of negative control samples is strongly advised.

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