Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-12T10:57:50.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter Two - Analytical approaches for microbiome research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2020

By
Xavier A. Harrison  and
Simon J. S. Cameron
Edited by
Rachael E. Antwis ,
Xavier A. Harrison  and
Michael J. Cox
Rachael E. Antwis
Affiliation:
University of Salford
Xavier A. Harrison
Affiliation:
University of Exeter
Michael J. Cox
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Get access

Summary

Two major outstanding questions in microbiome research ask what microbes are present in a community and how they interact with each other and their hosts. Recent, rapid improvements in nucleic acid (DNA and RNA) sequencing allow us to study the composition and function of microbiomes in unprecedented detail, leading to a step change in our understanding of host–microbe interactions. This chapter gives a broad overview of the basic toolkit available to modern microbiologists and microbial ecologists, exploring their application to key questions about microbiome structure and function. We cover tools based on nucleic acid sequencing (e.g. amplicon sequencing, metagenomics, metatranscriptomics) as well as approaches targeting larger molecules such as metabolomics and proteomics. We discuss the use of microbial culture as a means of measuring functional capacity of individual microbes, or building artificial communities to understand emergent properties of consortia. We emphasise the advantages of combining multiple techniques alongside robust experimental design to garner powerful quantitative estimates of microbiome structure, and how this relates to host–microbe interactions.

Keywords

bioinformaticscompositionculturingfunctional diversitymetabarcodingmetabolomicsmetageneticsmetatranscriptomicsproteomicssequencing
Type
Chapter
Information
Microbiomes of Soils, Plants and Animals
An Integrated Approach
 , pp. 8 - 28
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antwis, RE, Harrison, XA. (2018). Probiotic consortia are not uniformly effective against different amphibian chytrid pathogen isolates. Molecular Ecology, 27, 577–589.Google Scholar
Antwis, RE, Preziosi, RF, Harrison, XA, et al. (2015) Amphibian symbiotic bacteria do not show a universal ability to inhibit growth of the global panzootic lineage of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 81, 3706–3711.Google Scholar
Antwis, RE, Edwards, KL, Unwin, B, et al. (2019) Rare gut microbiota associated with breeding success, hormone metabolites and ovarian cycle phase in the critically endangered eastern black rhino. Microbiome, 7, 27.Google Scholar
Aßhauer, KP, Wemheuer, B, Daniel, R, et al. (2015) Tax4Fun: Predicting functional profiles from metagenomic 16S rRNA data. Bioinformatics, 31, 2882–2884.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baric, RS, Crosson, S, Damania, B, et al. (2016) Next-generation high-throughput functional annotation of microbial genomes. mBio 7, e01245–16.Google Scholar
Bates, KA, Clare, FC, O’Hanlon, S, et al. (2018) Amphibian chytridiomycosis outbreak dynamics are linked with host skin bacterial community structure. Nature Communications, 15, 693.Google Scholar
Bletz, MC, Goedbloed, DJ, Sanchez, E, et al. (2016) Amphibian gut microbiota shifts differentially in community structure but converges on habitat-specific predicted functions. Nature Communications, 7, 13699.Google Scholar
Bolnick, DI, Snowberg, LK, Caporaso, JG, et al. (2014) Major histocompatibility complex class II b polymorphism influences gut microbiota composition and diversity. Molecular Ecology, 23, 4831–4845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulgarelli, D, Schlaeppi, K, Spaepen, S, et al. (2013) Structure and functions of the bacterial microbiota of plants. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 64, 807–838.Google Scholar
Callahan, BJ, McMurdie, PJ, Rosen, MJ, et al. (2016) DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nature Methods, 13, 581.Google Scholar
Cameron, SJ, Bolt, F, Perdones-Montero, A, et al. (2016) Rapid evaporative ionisation mass spectrometry (REIMS) provides accurate direct from culture species identification within the genus Candida. Scientific Reports, 6, 36788.Google Scholar
Cameron, SJ, Takáts, Z. (2018) Mass spectrometry approaches to metabolic profiling of microbial communities within the human gastrointestinal tract. Methods, 149, 13–24.Google Scholar
Caporaso, JG, Kuczynski, J, Stombaugh, J, et al. (2010) QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nature Methods, 7, 335.Google Scholar
Carr, A, Diener, C, Baliga, NS, Gibbons, SM. (2019) Use and abuse of correlation analyses in microbial ecology. The ISME Journal. DOI:10.1038/s41396-019-0459-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comeau, AM, Douglas, GM, Langille, MG. (2017) Microbiome helper: A custom and streamlined workflow for microbiome research. mSystems, 2, e00127–16.Google Scholar
Escobar-Zepeda, A, Vera-Ponce de León, A, Sanchez-Flores, A. (2015) The road to metagenomics: From microbiology to DNA sequencing technologies and bioinformatics. Frontiers in Genetics, 6, 348.Google Scholar
Escobar-Zepeda, A, Godoy-Lozano, EE, Raggi, L, et al. (2018) Analysis of sequencing strategies and tools for taxonomic annotation: Defining standards for progressive metagenomics. Scientific Reports, 8, 12034.Google Scholar
Esposito, A, Kirschberg, M. (2014) How many 16S-based studies should be included in a metagenomic conference? It may be a matter of etymology. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 351, 145–146.Google Scholar
Finlayson-Trick, ECL, Getz, LJ, Slaine, PD, et al. (2017) Taxonomic differences of gut microbiomes drive cellulolytic enzymatic potential within hind-gut fermenting mammals. PLoS ONE, 12, e0189404.Google Scholar
Ghurye, JS, Cepeda-Espinoza, V, Pop, M. (2016) Metagenomic assembly: Overview, challenges and applications. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 89, 353–362.Google ScholarPubMed
Gloor, GB, Macklaim, JM, Pawlowsky-Glahn, V, et al. (2017) Microbiome datasets are compositional: And this is not optional. Frontiers in Microbiology, 8, 2224.Google Scholar
Golob, JL, Margolis, E, Hoffman, NG, et al. (2017). Evaluating the accuracy of amplicon-based microbiome computational pipelines on simulated human gut microbial communities. BMC Bioinformatics, 18, 283.Google Scholar
Goodrich, JK, Di Rienzi, SC, Poole, AC, et al. (2014) Conducting a microbiome study. Cell, 158, 250–262.Google Scholar
Griffiths, SM, Harrison, XA, Weldon, C, et al. (2018) Genetic variability and ontogeny predict microbiome structure in a disease-challenged montane amphibian. The ISME Journal, 12, 2506–2517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamdan, LJ, Coffin, RB, Sikaroodi, M, et al. (2013) Ocean currents shape the microbiome of Arctic marine sediments. The ISME Journal, 7, 685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Handelsman, J. (2004) Metagenomics: Application of genomics to uncultured microorganisms. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 68, 669–685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Handelsman, J. (2009) Metagenetics: Spending our inheritance on the future. Microbial Biotechnology, 2, 138–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hiraoka, S, Yang, CC, Iwasaki, W. (2016) Metagenomics and bioinformatics in microbial ecology: Current status and beyond. Microbes and Environments, 31, 204–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hitchens, AP, Leikind, MC. (1939). The introduction of agar-agar into bacteriology. Journal of Bacteriology, 37, 485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hooke, R. (1665) Micrographia or Some Physiological Descriptions of Minute Bodies Made by Magnifying Glasses with Observations and Inquiries Thereupon. Royal Society, London.Google Scholar
Hug, LA, Baker, BJ, Anantharaman, K, et al. (2016) A new view of the tree of life. Nature Microbiology, 1, 16048.Google Scholar
Iwai, S, Weinmaier, T, Schmidt, BL, et al. (2016) Piphillin: Improved prediction of metagenomic content by direct inference from human microbiomes. PLoS ONE, 11, e0166104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jani, AJ, Briggs, CJ. (2014) The pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis disturbs the frog skin microbiome during a natural epidemic and experimental infection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, E5049–E5058.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jarvis, RM, Goodacre, R. (2004) Discrimination of bacteria using surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy. Analytical Chemistry, 76, 40–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knight, R, Vrbanac, A, Taylor, BC, et al. (2018) Best practices for analysing microbiomes. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 16, 410–422.Google Scholar
Koch, R. (1882) Die Ätiologie der Tuberkulose. Berliner Klinische Wochenschrift, 15, 221–230.Google Scholar
Konstantinidis, KT, Rosselló-Móra, R, Amann, R. (2017) Uncultivated microbes in need of their own taxonomy. The ISME Journal, 11, 2399.Google Scholar
Kozich, JJ, Westcott, SL, Baxter, NT, et al. (2013) Development of a dual-index sequencing strategy and curation pipeline for analyzing amplicon sequence data on the MiSeq Illumina sequencing platform. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 79, 5112–5120.Google Scholar
Krohn, A, Stevens, B, Robbins-Pianka, A, et al. (2016) Optimization of 16S amplicon analysis using mock communities: Implications for estimating community diversity. PeerJ Preprints, 4, e2196v3.Google Scholar
Kunin, V, Copeland, A, Lapidus, A, et al. (2008) A bioinformatician’s guide to metagenomics. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 72, 557–578.Google Scholar
Lane, N. (2015) The unseen world: Reflections on Leeuwenhoek (1677); ‘concerning little animals’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370, 20140344.Google Scholar
Lamichhane, S, Sen, P, Dickens, AM, et al. (2018) Gut metabolome meets microbiome: A methodological perspective to understand the relationship between host and microbe. Methods, 149, 3–12.Google Scholar
Langille, MG, Zaneveld, J, Caporaso, JG, et al. (2013) Predictive functional profiling of microbial communities using 16S rRNA marker gene sequences. Nature Biotechnology, 31, 814.Google Scholar
Liu, B, Eydallin, G, Maharjan, RP, et al. (2017) Natural Escherichia coli isolates rapidly acquire genetic changes upon laboratory domestication. Microbiology, 163, 22–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maier, L, Pruteanu, M, Kuhn, M, et al. (2018) Extensive impact of non-antibiotic drugs on human gut bacteria. Nature, 555, 623.Google Scholar
Mallick, H, Ma, S, Franzosa, EA, et al. (2017) Experimental design and quantitative analysis of microbial community multiomics. Genome Biology, 18, 228.Google Scholar
Maurice, CF, Knowles, SC, Ladau, J, et al. (2015) Marked seasonal variation in the wild mouse gut microbiota. The ISME Journal, 9, 2423.Google Scholar
McKnight, DT, Huerlimann, R, Bower, DS, et al. (2019) Methods for normalizing microbiome data: An ecological perspective. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 10, 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meadow, JF, Altrichter, AE, Green, JL. (2014) Mobile phones carry the personal microbiome of their owners. PeerJ, 2, e447.Google Scholar
Mehnaz, S, Mirza, MS, Haurat, J, et al. (2001) Isolation and 16S rRNA sequence analysis of the beneficial bacteria from the rhizosphere of rice. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 47, 110–117.Google Scholar
Mendoza, ML, Xiong, Z, Escalera-Zamudio, M, et al. (2018) Hologenomic adaptations underlying the evolution of sanguivory in the common vampire bat. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2, 659.Google Scholar
Muletz-Wolz, CR, Almario, JG, Barnett, SE, et al. (2017) Inhibition of fungal pathogens across genotypes and temperatures by amphibian skin bacteria. Frontiers in Microbiology, 8, 1551.Google Scholar
Namiki, T, Hachiya, T, Tanaka, H, Sakakibara, Y. (2012) MetaVelvet: An extension of Velvet assembler to de novo metagenome assembly from short sequence reads. Nucleic Acids Research, 40, e155.Google Scholar
Nguyen, LH, Holmes, S. (2019) Ten quick tips for effective dimensionality reduction. PLoS Computational Biology, 15, e1006907.Google Scholar
Nguyen, NH, Song, Z, Bates, ST, et al. (2016) FUNGuild: An open annotation tool for parsing fungal community datasets by ecological guild. Fungal Ecology, 20, 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishida, AH, Ochman, H. (2018) Rates of gut microbiome divergence in mammals. Molecular Ecology, 27, 1884–1897.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paliy, O, Shankar, V. (2016) Application of multivariate statistical techniques in microbial ecology. Molecular Ecology, 25, 1032–1057.Google Scholar
Parks, DH, Chuvochina, M, Waite, DW, et al. (2018) A standardized bacterial taxonomy based on genome phylogeny substantially revises the tree of life. Nature Biotechnology, 36, 996–1004.Google Scholar
Piovia-Scott, J, Rejmanek, D, Woodhams, DC, et al. (2017) Greater species richness of bacterial skin symbionts better suppresses the amphibian fungal pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Microbial Ecology, 74, 217–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pollock, J, Glendinning, L, Wisedchanwet, T, et al. (2018) The madness of microbiome: Attempting to find consensus ‘best practice’ for 16S microbiome studies. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 84, e02627–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prosser, JI. (2010) Replicate or lie. Environmental Microbiology, 12, 1806–1810.Google Scholar
Quince, C, Walker, AW, Simpson, JT, et al. (2017) Shotgun metagenomics, from sampling to analysis. Nature Biotechnology, 35, 833.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rahnavard, G, Franzosa, EA, McIver, LJ, et al. (2017) High-sensitivity pattern discovery in large multi-omic datasets. Available at https://huttenhower.sph.harvard.edu/halla.Google Scholar
Rebollar, EA, Gutiérrez-Preciado, A, Noecker, C, et al. (2018) The skin microbiome of the neotropical frog Craugastor fitzingeri: Inferring potential bacterial–host–pathogen interactions from metagenomic data. Frontiers in Microbiology, 9, 466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rohart, F, Gautier, B, Singh, A, et al. (2017) mixOmics: An R package for ‘omics feature selection and multiple data integration. PLoS Computational Biology, 13, e1005752.Google Scholar
Sanders, JG, Powell, S, Kronauer, DJ, et al. (2014) Stability and phylogenetic correlation in gut microbiota: Lessons from ants and apes. Molecular Ecology, 23, 1268–1283.Google Scholar
Sanders, JG, Beichman, AC, Roman, J, et al. (2015) Baleen whales host a unique gut microbiome with similarities to both carnivores and herbivores. Nature Communications, 6, 8285.Google Scholar
Sankaran, K, Holmes, SP. (2019) Multitable methods for microbiome data integration. Frontiers in Genetics, 10, 627.Google Scholar
Sapp, J, Fox, GE. (2013) The singular quest for a universal tree of life. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 77, 541–550.Google Scholar
Schloss, PD, Westcott, SL, Ryabin, T, et al. (2009) Introducing mothur: Open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 75, 7537–7541.Google Scholar
Shakya, M, Quince, C, Campbell, JH, et al. (2013) Comparative metagenomic and rRNA microbial diversity characterization using archaeal and bacterial synthetic communities. Environmental Microbiology, 15, 1882–1899.Google Scholar
Spor, A, Koren, O, Ley, R. (2011) Unravelling the effects of the environment and host genotype on the gut microbiome. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 9, 279.Google Scholar
Stephens, PA, Buskirk, SW, Hayward, GD, et al. (2005) Information theory and hypothesis testing: A call for pluralism. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 4–12.Google Scholar
Thomas, T, Gilbert, J, Meyer, F. (2012) Metagenomics – A guide from sampling to data analysis. Microbial Informatics and Experimentation, 2, 3.Google Scholar
Turnbaugh, PJ, Hamady, M, Yatsunenko, T, et al. (2009) A core gut microbiome in obese and lean twins. Nature, 457, 480.Google Scholar
Uritskiy, GV, DiRuggiero, J, Taylor, J. (2018) MetaWRAP – A flexible pipeline for genome-resolved metagenomic data analysis. Microbiome, 6, 158.Google Scholar
Van der Walt, AJ, Van Goethem, MW, Ramond, JB, et al. (2017) Assembling metagenomes, one community at a time. BMC Genomics, 18, 521.Google Scholar
Van Leeuwenhoek, A. (1677) Observations, communicated to the publisher by Mr. Antony van Leeuwenhoek, in a Dutch letter of the 9th of October, 1677. Here English’d: Concerning little animals by him observed in rain-well-sea, and snow water; as also in water wherein pepper had lain infused. Philosophical Transactions, 12, 821–831.Google Scholar
Watrous, JD, Dorrestein, PC. (2011) Imaging mass spectrometry in microbiology. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 9, 683.Google Scholar
Weiss, S, Xu, ZZ, Peddada, S, et al. (2017) Normalization and microbial differential abundance strategies depend upon data characteristics. Microbiome, 5, 27.Google Scholar
Wilmes, P, Heintz‐Buschart, A, Bond, PL. (2015). A decade of metaproteomics: Where we stand and what the future holds. Proteomics, 15, 3409–3417.Google Scholar
Xu, J. (2006) Microbial ecology in the age of genomics and metagenomics: Concepts, tools, and recent advances. Molecular Ecology, 15, 1713–1731.Google Scholar
Xu, Z, Malmer, D, Langille, MG, et al. (2014) Which is more important for classifying microbial communities: Who’s there or what they can do? The ISME Journal, 8, 2357.Google Scholar
Zhou, J, He, Z, Yang, Y, et al. (2015) High-throughput metagenomic technologies for complex microbial community analysis: Open and closed formats. mBio, 6, e02288–14.Google Scholar
Zierer, J, Jackson, MA, Kastenmüller, G, et al. (2018) The fecal metabolome as a functional readout of the gut microbiome. Nature Genetics, 50, 790.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×