4.7 Article

Taxonomy of anaerobic digestion microbiome reveals biases associated with the applied high throughput sequencing strategies

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-20414-0

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Innovation Fund Denmark under the project SYMBIO Integration of Biomass and Wind Power for Biogas Enhancement and Upgrading via Hydrogen Assisted Anaerobic Digestion [12-132654]
  2. grant Ricerca Scientifica University of Padova [DOR 2016/17]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the past few years, many studies investigated the anaerobic digestion microbiome by means of 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing. Results obtained from these studies were compared to each other without taking into consideration the followed procedure for amplicons preparation and data analysis. This negligence was mainly due to the lack of knowledge regarding the biases influencing specific steps of the microbiome investigation process. In the present study, the main technical aspects of the 16S rRNA analysis were checked giving special attention to the approach used for high throughput sequencing. More specifically, the microbial compositions of three laboratory scale biogas reactors were analyzed before and after addition of sodium oleate by sequencing the microbiome with three different approaches: 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, shotgun DNA and shotgun RNA. This comparative analysis revealed that, in amplicon sequencing, abundance of some taxa (Euryarchaeota and Spirochaetes) was biased by the inefficiency of universal primers to hybridize all the templates. Reliability of the results obtained was also influenced by the number of hypervariable regions under investigation. Finally, amplicon sequencing and shotgun DNA underestimated the Methanoculleus genus, probably due to the low 16S rRNA gene copy number encoded in this taxon.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available