More Like this

1. Evaluating and Improving Small Subunit rRNA PCR Primer Coverage for Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryotes Using Metagenomes from Global Ocean Surveys

   https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00565-21  

   McNichol, Jesse ; Berube, Paul M. ; Biller, Steven J. ; Fuhrman, Jed A. ( June 2021 , mSystems)

   Gilbert, Jack A. (Ed.)

   ABSTRACT Small subunit rRNA (SSU rRNA) amplicon sequencing can quantitatively and comprehensively profile natural microbiomes, representing a critically important tool for studying diverse global ecosystems. However, results will only be accurate if PCR primers perfectly match the rRNA of all organisms present. To evaluate how well marine microorganisms across all 3 domains are detected by this method, we compared commonly used primers with >300 million rRNA gene sequences retrieved from globally distributed marine metagenomes. The best-performing primers compared to 16S rRNA of bacteria and archaea were 515Y/926R and 515Y/806RB, which perfectly matched over 96% of all sequences. Considering cyanobacterial and chloroplast 16S rRNA, 515Y/926R had the highest coverage (99%), making this set ideal for quantifying marine primary producers. For eukaryotic 18S rRNA sequences, 515Y/926R also performed best (88%), followed by V4R/V4RB (18S rRNA specific; 82%)—demonstrating that the 515Y/926R combination performs best overall for all 3 domains. Using Atlantic and Pacific Ocean samples, we demonstrate high correspondence between 515Y/926R amplicon abundances (generated for this study) and metagenomic 16S rRNA (median R 2 = 0.98, n  = 272), indicating amplicons can produce equally accurate community composition data compared with shotgun metagenomics. Our analysis also revealed that expected performance of all primer sets could be improved with minor modifications, pointing toward a nearly completely universal primer set that could accurately quantify biogeochemically important taxa in ecosystems ranging from the deep sea to the surface. In addition, our reproducible bioinformatic workflow can guide microbiome researchers studying different ecosystems or human health to similarly improve existing primers and generate more accurate quantitative amplicon data. IMPORTANCE PCR amplification and sequencing of marker genes is a low-cost technique for monitoring prokaryotic and eukaryotic microbial communities across space and time but will work optimally only if environmental organisms match PCR primer sequences exactly. In this study, we evaluated how well primers match globally distributed short-read oceanic metagenomes. Our results demonstrate that primer sets vary widely in performance, and that at least for marine systems, rRNA amplicon data from some primers lack significant biases compared to metagenomes. We also show that it is theoretically possible to create a nearly universal primer set for diverse saline environments by defining a specific mixture of a few dozen oligonucleotides, and present a software pipeline that can guide rational design of primers for any environment with available meta’omic data. 

   more » « less
2. The precautionary principle and dietary DNA metabarcoding: commonly used abundance thresholds change ecological interpretation

   https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.kwh70rz4s  

   Littleford-Colquhoun, Bethan ; Freeman, Patrick ; Sackett, Violet ; Tulloss, Camille ; McGarvey, Lauren ; Geremia, Chris ; Kartzinel, Tyler ( January 2021 , Dryad)

   Dietary DNA metabarcoding enables researchers to identify and characterize trophic interactions with a high degree of taxonomic precision. It is also sensitive to sources of bias and contamination in the field and lab. One of the earliest and most common strategies for dealing with such sensitivities has been to filter resulting sequence data to remove low-abundance sequences before conducting ecological analyses based on the presence or absence of food taxa. Although this step is now often perceived to be both necessary and sufficient for cleaning up datasets, evidence to support this perception is lacking and more attention needs to be paid to the related risk of introducing other undesirable errors. Using computer simulations, we demonstrate that common strategies to remove low-abundance sequences can erroneously eliminate true dietary sequences in ways that impact downstream dietary inferences. Using real data from well-studied wildlife populations in Yellowstone National Park, we further show how these strategies can markedly alter the composition of individual dietary profiles in ways that scale-up to obscure ecological interpretations about dietary generalism, specialism, and niche partitioning. Although the practice of removing low-abundance sequences may continue to be a useful strategy to address a subset of research questions that focus on a subset of relatively abundant food resources, its continued widespread use risks generating misleading perceptions about the structure of trophic networks. Researchers working with dietary DNA metabarcoding data—or similar data such as environmental DNA, microbiomes, or pathobiomes—should be aware of potential drawbacks and consider alternative bioinformatic, experimental, and statistical solutions. We used fecal DNA metabarcoding to characterize the diets of bison and bighorn sheep in winter and summer. Our analyses are based on 35 samples (median per species per season = 10) analyzed using the P6 loop of the chloroplast trnL(UAA) intron together with publicly available plant reference data (Illumina sequence read data are available at NCBI (BioProject: PRJNA780500)). Obicut was used to trim reads with a minimum quality threshold of 30, and primers were removed from forward and reverse reads using cutadapt. All further sequence identifications were performed using obitools; forward and reverse sequences were aligned using the illuminapairedend command using a minimum alignment score of 40, and only joined sequences retained. We used the obiuniq command to group identical sequences and tally them within samples, enabling us to quantify the relative read abundance (RRA) of each sequence. Sequences that occurred ≤2 times overall or that were ≤8 bp were discarded. Sequences were considered to be likely PCR artifacts if they were highly similar to another sequence (1 bp difference) and had a much lower abundance (0.05%) in the majority of samples in which they occurred; we discarded these sequences using the obiclean command. Overall, we characterized 357 plant sequences and a subset of 355 sequences were retained in the dataset after rarefying samples to equal sequencing depth. We then applied relative read abundance thresholds from 0% to 5% to the fecal samples. We compared differences in the inferred dietary richness within and between species based on individual samples, based on average richness across samples, and based on the total richness of each population after accounting for differences in sample size. The readme file contains an explanation of each of the variables in the dataset. Information on the methodology can be found in the associated manuscript referenced above.  

   more » « less
3. A Deep Learning-Based Real-time Seizure Detection System

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB50085.2020.9353623  

   Shawki, N. ; Elseify, T. ; Cap, T. ; Shah, V. ; Obeid, I. ; Picone, J. ( December 2020 , Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))

   Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)

   Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEG channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9. 

   more » « less
4. An improved method for utilizing high‐throughput amplicon sequencing to determine the diets of insectivorous animals

   https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12951  

   Jusino, Michelle A. ; Banik, Mark T. ; Palmer, Jonathan M. ; Wray, Amy K. ; Xiao, Lei ; Pelton, Emma ; Barber, Jesse R. ; Kawahara, Akito Y. ; Gratton, Claudio ; Peery, M. Zachariah ; et al ( January 2019 , Molecular Ecology Resources)

   DNA analysis of predator faeces using high‐throughput amplicon sequencing (HTS) enhances our understanding of predator–prey interactions. However, conclusions drawn from this technique are constrained by biases that occur in multiple steps of the HTS workflow. To better characterize insectivorous animal diets, we used DNA from a diverse set of arthropods to assess PCR biases of commonly used and novel primer pairs for the mitochondrial gene, cytochrome oxidase C subunit 1 (COI). We compared diversity recovered from HTS of bat guano samples using a commonly used primer pair “ZBJ” to results using the novel primer pair “ANML.” To parameterize our bioinformatics pipeline, we created an arthropod mock community consisting of single‐copy (cloned) COI sequences. To examine biases associated with both PCR and HTS, mock community members were combined in equimolar amounts both pre‐ and post‐PCR. We validated our system using guano from bats fed known diets and using composite samples of morphologically identified insects collected in pitfall traps. In PCR tests, the ANML primer pair amplified 58 of 59 arthropod taxa (98%), whereas ZBJ amplified 24–40 of 59 taxa (41%–68%). Furthermore, in an HTS comparison of field‐collected samples, the ANML primers detected nearly fourfold more arthropod taxa than the ZBJ primers. The additional arthropods detected include medically and economically relevant insect groups such as mosquitoes. Results revealed biases at both the PCR and sequencing levels, demonstrating the pitfalls associated with using HTS read numbers as proxies for abundance. The use of an arthropod mock community allowed for improved bioinformatics pipeline parameterization.

    

   more » « less
5. Comprehensive single‐PCR 16S and 18S rRNA community analysis validated with mock communities, and estimation of sequencing bias against 18S

   https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.15553  

   Yeh, Yi‐Chun ; McNichol, Jesse ; Needham, David M. ; Fichot, Erin B. ; Berdjeb, Lyria ; Fuhrman, Jed A. ( May 2021 , Environmental Microbiology)

   Universal primers for SSU rRNA genes allow profiling of natural communities by simultaneously amplifying templates from Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryota in a single PCR reaction. Despite the potential to show relative abundance for all rRNA genes, universal primers are rarely used, due to various concerns including amplicon length variation and its effect on bioinformatic pipelines. We thus developed 16S and 18S rRNA mock communities and a bioinformatic pipeline to validate this approach. Using these mocks, we show that universal primers (515Y/926R) outperformed eukaryote‐specific V4 primers in observed versus expected abundance correlations (slope = 0.88 vs. 0.67–0.79), and mock community members with single mismatches to the primer were strongly underestimated (threefold to eightfold). Using field samples, both primers yielded similar 18S beta‐diversity patterns (Mantel test,p < 0.001) but differences in relative proportions of many rarer taxa. To test for length biases, we mixed mock communities (16S + 18S) before PCR and found a twofold underestimation of 18S sequences due to sequencing bias. Correcting for the twofold underestimation, we estimate that, in Southern California field samples (1.2–80 μm), there were averages of 35% 18S, 28% chloroplast 16S, and 37% prokaryote 16S rRNA genes. These data demonstrate the potential for universal primers to generate comprehensive microbiome profiles.

    

   more » « less