Comparison of illumina versus nanopore 16s rRNA gene sequencing of the human nasal microbiota
Heikema, Astrid P.; Horst-Kreft, Deborah; Boers, Stefan A.; Jansen, Rick; Hiltemann, Saskia D.; de Koning, Willem; Kraaij, Robert; de Ridder, Maria A.J.; van Houten, Chantal B.; Bont, Louis J.; Stubbs, Andrew P.; Hays, John P.
(2020) Genes, volume 11, issue 9, pp. 1 - 17
(Article)
Abstract
Illumina and nanopore sequencing technologies are powerful tools that can be used to determine the bacterial composition of complex microbial communities. In this study, we compared nasal microbiota results at genus level using both Illumina and nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing. We also monitored the progression of nanopore sequencing in
... read more
the accurate identification of species, using pure, single species cultures, and evaluated the performance of the nanopore EPI2ME 16S data analysis pipeline. Fifty-nine nasal swabs were sequenced using Illumina MiSeq and Oxford Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing technologies. In addition, five pure cultures of relevant bacterial species were sequenced with the nanopore sequencing technology. The Illumina MiSeq sequence data were processed using bioinformatics modules present in the Mothur software package. Albacore and Guppy base calling, a workflow in nanopore EPI2ME (Oxford Nanopore Technologies—ONT, Oxford, UK) and an in-house developed bioinformatics script were used to analyze the nanopore data. At genus level, similar bacterial diversity profiles were found, and five main and established genera were identified by both platforms. However, probably due to mismatching of the nanopore sequence primers, the nanopore sequencing platform identified Corynebacterium in much lower abundance compared to Illumina sequencing. Further, when using default settings in the EPI2ME workflow, almost all sequence reads that seem to belong to the bacterial genus Dolosigranulum and a considerable part to the genus Haemophilus were only identified at family level. Nanopore sequencing of single species cultures demonstrated at least 88% accurate identification of the species at genus and species level for 4/5 strains tested, including improvements in accurate sequence read identification when the basecaller Guppy and Albacore, and when flowcell versions R9.4 (Oxford Nanopore Technologies—ONT, Oxford, UK) and R9.2 (Oxford Nanopore Technologies—ONT, Oxford, UK) were compared. In conclusion, the current study shows that the nanopore sequencing platform is comparable with the Illumina platform in detection bacterial genera of the nasal microbiota, but the nanopore platform does have problems in detecting bacteria within the genus Corynebacterium. Although advances are being made, thorough validation of the nanopore platform is still recommendable.
show less
Download/Full Text
Keywords: 16S rRNA gene, Bacterial species, Corynebacterium, Illumina sequencing, Nanopore sequencing, Nasal microbiota, Genetics, Genetics(clinical)
ISSN: 2073-4425
Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)
Note: Funding Information: This work received funding from the European Union?s Seventh Framework Programme for Health under grant agreement number 602860 (TAILORED-Treatment; www.tailored-treatment.eu). Acknowledgments: We thank A.C., E.E. and K.O., MeMed, Tirat Carmel, Israel and Dan Engelhard, Hadassah Medical Centre, Ein Kerem, Israel, for their contribution to collecting nose swab samples; and D.F. and E.G., NorayBio, Bilbao, Spain for help with microbiota database management. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding Information: Funding: This work received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for Health under grant agreement number 602860 (TAILORED-Treatment; www.tailored-treatment.eu). Publisher Copyright: © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
(Peer reviewed)