Human faecal collection methods demonstrate a bias in microbiome composition by cell wall structure

Clinical trial faecal collections present challenges through geographical spread and inexperienced participants. Collection techniques have been developed and tested to overcome these challenges, but previous studies investigating these techniques have demonstrated a highly variable capacity for sam...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Scientific reports 2019-11, Vol.9 (1), p.16831-8, Article 16831
Hauptverfasser: Watson, Emma-Jane, Giles, Jennifer, Scherer, Benjamin L., Blatchford, Paul
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 8
container_issue 1
container_start_page 16831
container_title Scientific reports
container_volume 9
creator Watson, Emma-Jane
Giles, Jennifer
Scherer, Benjamin L.
Blatchford, Paul
description Clinical trial faecal collections present challenges through geographical spread and inexperienced participants. Collection techniques have been developed and tested to overcome these challenges, but previous studies investigating these techniques have demonstrated a highly variable capacity for sample preservation. Furthermore, these studies typically only examine either preservation of genetic content or metabolites, not both. This study investigated the Stool Nucleic Acid Collection and Preservation Tube (Norgen BioTek Corp) for the preservation of both microbial DNA and microbial organic acid metabolites in human faecal samples when compared to frozen samples. Twenty six healthy adult participants were instructed to collect a bowel movement, subsample into collection tubes and immediately transfer the remaining bulk to −20 °C storage. Resulting organic acid concentrations remained comparable across methods when the preservation tubes were used correctly. The 16S rRNA gene sequencing data revealed twenty significantly different bacterial genera between the two collection methods. Ten Gram-negative genera were more abundant in the collection tubes, and ten Gram-positive genera were more abundant in the fresh frozen samples. This study has illustrated that faecal collection methods bias the microbial community profile according to Gram status and this should be considered when designing studies that collect and store human faecal samples.
doi_str_mv 10.1038/s41598-019-53183-5
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6856092</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2315089289</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-89b9c23d8de7a7c0a8327d117bfe278d3fe8ef6de30b884c81dceea69ccf93bf3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UUtLxDAQDqKorP4BDxLw4qWaR9skF0FEXWHBi55Dmk410jZr0ir7783u-lg9mMMk8D1mJh9CR5ScUcLlecxpoWRGqMoKTiXPii20z0heZIwztr3x3kOHMb6QdAqmcqp20R6ngglV8n1kp2NnetwYsKbF1rct2MH5HncwPPs64ho638chmAGwwZUzEbuEOht85XwHSdPNfXQrUbXAFtoWv5tUkmi0wxjgAO00po1w-HlP0OPN9cPVNJvd395dXc4ym4t8yKSqlGW8ljUIIywxkjNRUyqqBpiQNW9AQlPWwEklZW4lrS2AKZW1jeJVwyfoYu07H6sOEtinsVs9D64zYaG9cfo30rtn_eTfdCmLkiiWDE4_DYJ_HSEOunNxuZDpwY9RM04LIhWTKlFP_lBf_Bj6tN6SlRc5JWJpyNas9FsxBmi-h6FEL2PU6xh1ilGvYkx1go431_iWfIWWCHxNiAnqnyD89P7H9gOtB6tY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2314541072</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Human faecal collection methods demonstrate a bias in microbiome composition by cell wall structure</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Nature Free</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><creator>Watson, Emma-Jane ; Giles, Jennifer ; Scherer, Benjamin L. ; Blatchford, Paul</creator><creatorcontrib>Watson, Emma-Jane ; Giles, Jennifer ; Scherer, Benjamin L. ; Blatchford, Paul</creatorcontrib><description>Clinical trial faecal collections present challenges through geographical spread and inexperienced participants. Collection techniques have been developed and tested to overcome these challenges, but previous studies investigating these techniques have demonstrated a highly variable capacity for sample preservation. Furthermore, these studies typically only examine either preservation of genetic content or metabolites, not both. This study investigated the Stool Nucleic Acid Collection and Preservation Tube (Norgen BioTek Corp) for the preservation of both microbial DNA and microbial organic acid metabolites in human faecal samples when compared to frozen samples. Twenty six healthy adult participants were instructed to collect a bowel movement, subsample into collection tubes and immediately transfer the remaining bulk to −20 °C storage. Resulting organic acid concentrations remained comparable across methods when the preservation tubes were used correctly. The 16S rRNA gene sequencing data revealed twenty significantly different bacterial genera between the two collection methods. Ten Gram-negative genera were more abundant in the collection tubes, and ten Gram-positive genera were more abundant in the fresh frozen samples. This study has illustrated that faecal collection methods bias the microbial community profile according to Gram status and this should be considered when designing studies that collect and store human faecal samples.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2045-2322</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2045-2322</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-53183-5</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31727963</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Nature Publishing Group UK</publisher><subject>13 ; 45/22 ; 45/23 ; 631/326/2522 ; 704/158/855 ; Adult ; Bacteria - chemistry ; Bacteria - classification ; Bacteria - genetics ; Cell walls ; Data collection ; DNA, Bacterial - genetics ; DNA, Ribosomal - genetics ; Feces - chemistry ; Feces - microbiology ; Freezing ; Healthy Volunteers ; Humanities and Social Sciences ; Humans ; Hydrogen-Ion Concentration ; Intestine ; Metabolites ; Microbiomes ; Microbiota ; multidisciplinary ; Nucleic acids ; Organic acids ; Phylogeny ; Preservation ; RNA, Ribosomal, 16S - genetics ; rRNA 16S ; Sample preservation ; Science ; Science (multidisciplinary) ; Sequence Analysis, DNA ; Specimen Handling - adverse effects ; Specimen Handling - instrumentation</subject><ispartof>Scientific reports, 2019-11, Vol.9 (1), p.16831-8, Article 16831</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2019</rights><rights>2019. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-89b9c23d8de7a7c0a8327d117bfe278d3fe8ef6de30b884c81dceea69ccf93bf3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-89b9c23d8de7a7c0a8327d117bfe278d3fe8ef6de30b884c81dceea69ccf93bf3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6856092/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6856092/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,27901,27902,41096,42165,51551,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31727963$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Watson, Emma-Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giles, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scherer, Benjamin L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blatchford, Paul</creatorcontrib><title>Human faecal collection methods demonstrate a bias in microbiome composition by cell wall structure</title><title>Scientific reports</title><addtitle>Sci Rep</addtitle><addtitle>Sci Rep</addtitle><description>Clinical trial faecal collections present challenges through geographical spread and inexperienced participants. Collection techniques have been developed and tested to overcome these challenges, but previous studies investigating these techniques have demonstrated a highly variable capacity for sample preservation. Furthermore, these studies typically only examine either preservation of genetic content or metabolites, not both. This study investigated the Stool Nucleic Acid Collection and Preservation Tube (Norgen BioTek Corp) for the preservation of both microbial DNA and microbial organic acid metabolites in human faecal samples when compared to frozen samples. Twenty six healthy adult participants were instructed to collect a bowel movement, subsample into collection tubes and immediately transfer the remaining bulk to −20 °C storage. Resulting organic acid concentrations remained comparable across methods when the preservation tubes were used correctly. The 16S rRNA gene sequencing data revealed twenty significantly different bacterial genera between the two collection methods. Ten Gram-negative genera were more abundant in the collection tubes, and ten Gram-positive genera were more abundant in the fresh frozen samples. This study has illustrated that faecal collection methods bias the microbial community profile according to Gram status and this should be considered when designing studies that collect and store human faecal samples.</description><subject>13</subject><subject>45/22</subject><subject>45/23</subject><subject>631/326/2522</subject><subject>704/158/855</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Bacteria - chemistry</subject><subject>Bacteria - classification</subject><subject>Bacteria - genetics</subject><subject>Cell walls</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>DNA, Bacterial - genetics</subject><subject>DNA, Ribosomal - genetics</subject><subject>Feces - chemistry</subject><subject>Feces - microbiology</subject><subject>Freezing</subject><subject>Healthy Volunteers</subject><subject>Humanities and Social Sciences</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hydrogen-Ion Concentration</subject><subject>Intestine</subject><subject>Metabolites</subject><subject>Microbiomes</subject><subject>Microbiota</subject><subject>multidisciplinary</subject><subject>Nucleic acids</subject><subject>Organic acids</subject><subject>Phylogeny</subject><subject>Preservation</subject><subject>RNA, Ribosomal, 16S - genetics</subject><subject>rRNA 16S</subject><subject>Sample preservation</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Science (multidisciplinary)</subject><subject>Sequence Analysis, DNA</subject><subject>Specimen Handling - adverse effects</subject><subject>Specimen Handling - instrumentation</subject><issn>2045-2322</issn><issn>2045-2322</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UUtLxDAQDqKorP4BDxLw4qWaR9skF0FEXWHBi55Dmk410jZr0ir7783u-lg9mMMk8D1mJh9CR5ScUcLlecxpoWRGqMoKTiXPii20z0heZIwztr3x3kOHMb6QdAqmcqp20R6ngglV8n1kp2NnetwYsKbF1rct2MH5HncwPPs64ho638chmAGwwZUzEbuEOht85XwHSdPNfXQrUbXAFtoWv5tUkmi0wxjgAO00po1w-HlP0OPN9cPVNJvd395dXc4ym4t8yKSqlGW8ljUIIywxkjNRUyqqBpiQNW9AQlPWwEklZW4lrS2AKZW1jeJVwyfoYu07H6sOEtinsVs9D64zYaG9cfo30rtn_eTfdCmLkiiWDE4_DYJ_HSEOunNxuZDpwY9RM04LIhWTKlFP_lBf_Bj6tN6SlRc5JWJpyNas9FsxBmi-h6FEL2PU6xh1ilGvYkx1go431_iWfIWWCHxNiAnqnyD89P7H9gOtB6tY</recordid><startdate>20191114</startdate><enddate>20191114</enddate><creator>Watson, Emma-Jane</creator><creator>Giles, Jennifer</creator><creator>Scherer, Benjamin L.</creator><creator>Blatchford, Paul</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group UK</general><general>Nature Publishing Group</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQGLB</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20191114</creationdate><title>Human faecal collection methods demonstrate a bias in microbiome composition by cell wall structure</title><author>Watson, Emma-Jane ; Giles, Jennifer ; Scherer, Benjamin L. ; Blatchford, Paul</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-89b9c23d8de7a7c0a8327d117bfe278d3fe8ef6de30b884c81dceea69ccf93bf3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>13</topic><topic>45/22</topic><topic>45/23</topic><topic>631/326/2522</topic><topic>704/158/855</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Bacteria - chemistry</topic><topic>Bacteria - classification</topic><topic>Bacteria - genetics</topic><topic>Cell walls</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>DNA, Bacterial - genetics</topic><topic>DNA, Ribosomal - genetics</topic><topic>Feces - chemistry</topic><topic>Feces - microbiology</topic><topic>Freezing</topic><topic>Healthy Volunteers</topic><topic>Humanities and Social Sciences</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hydrogen-Ion Concentration</topic><topic>Intestine</topic><topic>Metabolites</topic><topic>Microbiomes</topic><topic>Microbiota</topic><topic>multidisciplinary</topic><topic>Nucleic acids</topic><topic>Organic acids</topic><topic>Phylogeny</topic><topic>Preservation</topic><topic>RNA, Ribosomal, 16S - genetics</topic><topic>rRNA 16S</topic><topic>Sample preservation</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Science (multidisciplinary)</topic><topic>Sequence Analysis, DNA</topic><topic>Specimen Handling - adverse effects</topic><topic>Specimen Handling - instrumentation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Watson, Emma-Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giles, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scherer, Benjamin L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blatchford, Paul</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health &amp; Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Applied &amp; Life Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Scientific reports</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Watson, Emma-Jane</au><au>Giles, Jennifer</au><au>Scherer, Benjamin L.</au><au>Blatchford, Paul</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Human faecal collection methods demonstrate a bias in microbiome composition by cell wall structure</atitle><jtitle>Scientific reports</jtitle><stitle>Sci Rep</stitle><addtitle>Sci Rep</addtitle><date>2019-11-14</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>16831</spage><epage>8</epage><pages>16831-8</pages><artnum>16831</artnum><issn>2045-2322</issn><eissn>2045-2322</eissn><abstract>Clinical trial faecal collections present challenges through geographical spread and inexperienced participants. Collection techniques have been developed and tested to overcome these challenges, but previous studies investigating these techniques have demonstrated a highly variable capacity for sample preservation. Furthermore, these studies typically only examine either preservation of genetic content or metabolites, not both. This study investigated the Stool Nucleic Acid Collection and Preservation Tube (Norgen BioTek Corp) for the preservation of both microbial DNA and microbial organic acid metabolites in human faecal samples when compared to frozen samples. Twenty six healthy adult participants were instructed to collect a bowel movement, subsample into collection tubes and immediately transfer the remaining bulk to −20 °C storage. Resulting organic acid concentrations remained comparable across methods when the preservation tubes were used correctly. The 16S rRNA gene sequencing data revealed twenty significantly different bacterial genera between the two collection methods. Ten Gram-negative genera were more abundant in the collection tubes, and ten Gram-positive genera were more abundant in the fresh frozen samples. This study has illustrated that faecal collection methods bias the microbial community profile according to Gram status and this should be considered when designing studies that collect and store human faecal samples.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group UK</pub><pmid>31727963</pmid><doi>10.1038/s41598-019-53183-5</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2045-2322
ispartof Scientific reports, 2019-11, Vol.9 (1), p.16831-8, Article 16831
issn 2045-2322
2045-2322
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6856092
source MEDLINE; Nature Free; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Springer Nature OA Free Journals
subjects 13
45/22
45/23
631/326/2522
704/158/855
Adult
Bacteria - chemistry
Bacteria - classification
Bacteria - genetics
Cell walls
Data collection
DNA, Bacterial - genetics
DNA, Ribosomal - genetics
Feces - chemistry
Feces - microbiology
Freezing
Healthy Volunteers
Humanities and Social Sciences
Humans
Hydrogen-Ion Concentration
Intestine
Metabolites
Microbiomes
Microbiota
multidisciplinary
Nucleic acids
Organic acids
Phylogeny
Preservation
RNA, Ribosomal, 16S - genetics
rRNA 16S
Sample preservation
Science
Science (multidisciplinary)
Sequence Analysis, DNA
Specimen Handling - adverse effects
Specimen Handling - instrumentation
title Human faecal collection methods demonstrate a bias in microbiome composition by cell wall structure
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T19%3A45%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Human%20faecal%20collection%20methods%20demonstrate%20a%20bias%20in%20microbiome%20composition%20by%20cell%20wall%20structure&rft.jtitle=Scientific%20reports&rft.au=Watson,%20Emma-Jane&rft.date=2019-11-14&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=16831&rft.epage=8&rft.pages=16831-8&rft.artnum=16831&rft.issn=2045-2322&rft.eissn=2045-2322&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/s41598-019-53183-5&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2315089289%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2314541072&rft_id=info:pmid/31727963&rfr_iscdi=true