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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Scientific reports 2019-11, Vol.9 (1), p.16831-8, Article 16831 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
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 & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & 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 & Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health & Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Applied & 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 |