MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2578475518 · doi:10.1186/s12866-017-0927-4

Optimisation of methods for bacterial skin microbiome investigation: primer selection and comparison of the 454 versus MiSeq platform

2017· article· en· W2578475518 on OpenAlexaff
Madhura Castelino, Stephen Eyre, John Moat, Graeme Fox, Paul Martin, Pauline Ho, Mathew Upton, Anne Barton

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Microbiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences Centre
FundersManchester Biomedical Research CentreVersus ArthritisArthritis Research UKNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsBiologyMicrobiomeHypervariable regionPrimer (cosmetics)16S ribosomal RNAGeneticsComputational biologyRibosomal RNADNA sequencingPyrosequencingMetagenomicsHuman microbiomeGenePolymerase chain reaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The composition of the skin microbiome is predicted to play a role in the development of conditions such as atopic eczema and psoriasis. 16S rRNA gene sequencing allows the investigation of bacterial microbiota. A significant challenge in this field is development of cost effective high throughput methodologies for the robust interrogation of the skin microbiota, where biomass is low. Here we describe validation of methodologies for 16S rRNA (ribosomal ribonucleic acid) gene sequencing from the skin microbiome, using the Illumina MiSeq platform, the selection of primer to amplify regions for sequencing and we compare results with the current standard protocols.. METHODS: DNA was obtained from two low density mock communities of 11 diverse bacterial strains (with and without human DNA supplementation) and from swabs taken from the skin of healthy volunteers. This was amplified using primer pairs covering hypervariable regions of the 16S rRNA gene: primers 63F and 519R (V1-V3); and 347F and 803R (V3-V4). The resultant libraries were indexed for the MiSeq and Roche454 and sequenced. Both data sets were denoised, cleaned of chimeras and analysed using QIIME. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the diversity indices at the phylum and the genus level observed between the platforms. The capture of diversity using the low density mock community samples demonstrated that the primer pair spanning the V3-V4 hypervariable region had better capture when compared to the primer pair for the V1-V3 region and was robust to spiking with human DNA. The pilot data generated using the V3-V4 region from the skin of healthy volunteers was consistent with these results, even at the genus level (Staphylococcus, Propionibacterium, Corynebacterium, Paracoccus, Micrococcus, Enhydrobacter and Deinococcus identified at similar abundances on both platforms). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the bacterial community diversity captured using the V3-V4 16S rRNA hypervariable region from sequencing using the MiSeq platform is comparable to the Roche454 GS Junior platform. These findings provide evidence that the optimised method can be used in human clinical samples of low bacterial biomass such as the investigation of the skin microbiota.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations152
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC MicrobiologySame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207