A Comparison of Homogenization vs. Enzymatic Lysis for Microbiome Profiling in Clinical Endoscopic Biopsy Tissue Samples

Identification of the human microbiome has proven to be of utmost importance with the emerging role of bacteria in various physiological and pathological processes. High throughput sequencing strategies have evolved to assess the composition of the microbiome. To identify possible bias that may exis...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Chao Zhang, Prashant V. Thakkar, Sarah Ellen Powell, Prateek Sharma, Sreekar Vennelaganti, Doron Betel, Manish A. Shah
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-01-01
Series:Frontiers in Microbiology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmicb.2018.03246/full
id doaj-82c0f9c7a5664dd1977255456024f0e8
record_format Article
spelling doaj-82c0f9c7a5664dd1977255456024f0e82020-11-24T20:57:12ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Microbiology1664-302X2019-01-01910.3389/fmicb.2018.03246412012A Comparison of Homogenization vs. Enzymatic Lysis for Microbiome Profiling in Clinical Endoscopic Biopsy Tissue SamplesChao Zhang0Chao Zhang1Prashant V. Thakkar2Sarah Ellen Powell3Prateek Sharma4Sreekar Vennelaganti5Doron Betel6Doron Betel7Manish A. Shah8Institute for Computational Biomedicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United StatesDivision of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United StatesDivision of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United StatesDivision of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United StatesVeterans Affairs Medical Center and University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, MO, United StatesVeterans Affairs Medical Center and University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, MO, United StatesInstitute for Computational Biomedicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United StatesDivision of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United StatesDivision of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United StatesIdentification of the human microbiome has proven to be of utmost importance with the emerging role of bacteria in various physiological and pathological processes. High throughput sequencing strategies have evolved to assess the composition of the microbiome. To identify possible bias that may exist in the processing of tissue for whole genome sequencing (WGS), it is important to evaluate the extraction method on the overall microbial content and composition. Here we compare two different methods of extraction, homogenization vs. enzymatic lysis, on gastric, esophageal and colorectal biopsies and survey the microbial content and composition using WGS and quantitative PCR (qPCR). We examined total bacterial content using universal 16S rDNA qPCR as well as the abundance of three phyla (Actinobacter, Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes) and one genus (Fusobacterium). We found minimal differences between the two extraction methods in the overall community structure. Furthermore, based on our qPCR analysis, neither method demonstrated preferential extraction of any particular clade of bacteria, nor significantly altered the detection of Gram-positive or Gram-negative organisms. However, although the overall microbial composition remained very similar and the most prevalent bacteria could be detected effectively using either method, the precise community structure and microbial abundances between the two methods were different, primarily due to variations in detection of low abundance genus. We also demonstrate that the homogenization extraction method provides higher microbial DNA content and higher read counts from human tissue biopsy samples of the gastrointestinal tract.https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmicb.2018.03246/fullgastrointestinal tractwhole genome sequencingquantitative PCRmicrobiomeclinical biopsymetagenomics
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Chao Zhang
Chao Zhang
Prashant V. Thakkar
Sarah Ellen Powell
Prateek Sharma
Sreekar Vennelaganti
Doron Betel
Doron Betel
Manish A. Shah
spellingShingle Chao Zhang
Chao Zhang
Prashant V. Thakkar
Sarah Ellen Powell
Prateek Sharma
Sreekar Vennelaganti
Doron Betel
Doron Betel
Manish A. Shah
A Comparison of Homogenization vs. Enzymatic Lysis for Microbiome Profiling in Clinical Endoscopic Biopsy Tissue Samples
Frontiers in Microbiology
gastrointestinal tract
whole genome sequencing
quantitative PCR
microbiome
clinical biopsy
metagenomics
author_facet Chao Zhang
Chao Zhang
Prashant V. Thakkar
Sarah Ellen Powell
Prateek Sharma
Sreekar Vennelaganti
Doron Betel
Doron Betel
Manish A. Shah
author_sort Chao Zhang
title A Comparison of Homogenization vs. Enzymatic Lysis for Microbiome Profiling in Clinical Endoscopic Biopsy Tissue Samples
title_short A Comparison of Homogenization vs. Enzymatic Lysis for Microbiome Profiling in Clinical Endoscopic Biopsy Tissue Samples
title_full A Comparison of Homogenization vs. Enzymatic Lysis for Microbiome Profiling in Clinical Endoscopic Biopsy Tissue Samples
title_fullStr A Comparison of Homogenization vs. Enzymatic Lysis for Microbiome Profiling in Clinical Endoscopic Biopsy Tissue Samples
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Homogenization vs. Enzymatic Lysis for Microbiome Profiling in Clinical Endoscopic Biopsy Tissue Samples
title_sort comparison of homogenization vs. enzymatic lysis for microbiome profiling in clinical endoscopic biopsy tissue samples
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Microbiology
issn 1664-302X
publishDate 2019-01-01
description Identification of the human microbiome has proven to be of utmost importance with the emerging role of bacteria in various physiological and pathological processes. High throughput sequencing strategies have evolved to assess the composition of the microbiome. To identify possible bias that may exist in the processing of tissue for whole genome sequencing (WGS), it is important to evaluate the extraction method on the overall microbial content and composition. Here we compare two different methods of extraction, homogenization vs. enzymatic lysis, on gastric, esophageal and colorectal biopsies and survey the microbial content and composition using WGS and quantitative PCR (qPCR). We examined total bacterial content using universal 16S rDNA qPCR as well as the abundance of three phyla (Actinobacter, Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes) and one genus (Fusobacterium). We found minimal differences between the two extraction methods in the overall community structure. Furthermore, based on our qPCR analysis, neither method demonstrated preferential extraction of any particular clade of bacteria, nor significantly altered the detection of Gram-positive or Gram-negative organisms. However, although the overall microbial composition remained very similar and the most prevalent bacteria could be detected effectively using either method, the precise community structure and microbial abundances between the two methods were different, primarily due to variations in detection of low abundance genus. We also demonstrate that the homogenization extraction method provides higher microbial DNA content and higher read counts from human tissue biopsy samples of the gastrointestinal tract.
topic gastrointestinal tract
whole genome sequencing
quantitative PCR
microbiome
clinical biopsy
metagenomics
url https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmicb.2018.03246/full
work_keys_str_mv AT chaozhang acomparisonofhomogenizationvsenzymaticlysisformicrobiomeprofilinginclinicalendoscopicbiopsytissuesamples
AT chaozhang acomparisonofhomogenizationvsenzymaticlysisformicrobiomeprofilinginclinicalendoscopicbiopsytissuesamples
AT prashantvthakkar acomparisonofhomogenizationvsenzymaticlysisformicrobiomeprofilinginclinicalendoscopicbiopsytissuesamples
AT sarahellenpowell acomparisonofhomogenizationvsenzymaticlysisformicrobiomeprofilinginclinicalendoscopicbiopsytissuesamples
AT prateeksharma acomparisonofhomogenizationvsenzymaticlysisformicrobiomeprofilinginclinicalendoscopicbiopsytissuesamples
AT sreekarvennelaganti acomparisonofhomogenizationvsenzymaticlysisformicrobiomeprofilinginclinicalendoscopicbiopsytissuesamples
AT doronbetel acomparisonofhomogenizationvsenzymaticlysisformicrobiomeprofilinginclinicalendoscopicbiopsytissuesamples
AT doronbetel acomparisonofhomogenizationvsenzymaticlysisformicrobiomeprofilinginclinicalendoscopicbiopsytissuesamples
AT manishashah acomparisonofhomogenizationvsenzymaticlysisformicrobiomeprofilinginclinicalendoscopicbiopsytissuesamples
AT chaozhang comparisonofhomogenizationvsenzymaticlysisformicrobiomeprofilinginclinicalendoscopicbiopsytissuesamples
AT chaozhang comparisonofhomogenizationvsenzymaticlysisformicrobiomeprofilinginclinicalendoscopicbiopsytissuesamples
AT prashantvthakkar comparisonofhomogenizationvsenzymaticlysisformicrobiomeprofilinginclinicalendoscopicbiopsytissuesamples
AT sarahellenpowell comparisonofhomogenizationvsenzymaticlysisformicrobiomeprofilinginclinicalendoscopicbiopsytissuesamples
AT prateeksharma comparisonofhomogenizationvsenzymaticlysisformicrobiomeprofilinginclinicalendoscopicbiopsytissuesamples
AT sreekarvennelaganti comparisonofhomogenizationvsenzymaticlysisformicrobiomeprofilinginclinicalendoscopicbiopsytissuesamples
AT doronbetel comparisonofhomogenizationvsenzymaticlysisformicrobiomeprofilinginclinicalendoscopicbiopsytissuesamples
AT doronbetel comparisonofhomogenizationvsenzymaticlysisformicrobiomeprofilinginclinicalendoscopicbiopsytissuesamples
AT manishashah comparisonofhomogenizationvsenzymaticlysisformicrobiomeprofilinginclinicalendoscopicbiopsytissuesamples
_version_ 1716788492429688832