4.3 Article

Effect of storage conditions on the assessment of bacterial community structure in soil and human-associated samples

期刊

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY LETTERS
卷 307, 期 1, 页码 80-86

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2010.01965.x

关键词

microbial community storage conditions; environmental and human metagenomic studies; barcoded bacterial 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing; phylogenetic- and taxonomic-based community analyses; soil; human fecal and human skin microbiota

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [EAR 0724960]
  2. U.S. Department of Agriculture [2008-04346]
  3. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  4. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  5. Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America
  6. NIH [R01 HG004872]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Storage conditions are considered to be a critical component of DNA-based microbial community analysis methods. However, whether differences in short-term sample storage conditions impact the assessment of bacterial community composition and diversity requires systematic and quantitative assessment. Therefore, we used barcoded pyrosequencing of bacterial 16S rRNA genes to survey communities, harvested from a variety of habitats [soil, human gut (feces) and human skin] and subsequently stored at 20, 4, -20 and -80 degrees C for 3 and 14 days. Our results indicate that the phylogenetic structure and diversity of communities in individual samples were not significantly influenced by the storage temperature or the duration of storage. Likewise, the relative abundances of most taxa were largely unaffected by temperature even after 14 days of storage. Our results indicate that environmental factors and biases in molecular techniques likely confer greater amounts of variation to microbial communities than do differences in short-term storage conditions, including storage for up to 2 weeks at room temperature. These results suggest that many samples collected and stored under field conditions without refrigeration may be useful for microbial community 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

4.3
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