Search for: All records

Over the past two decades, researchers have searched for methods to better understand the relationship between coral hosts and their microbiomes. Data on how coral-associated bacteria are involved in their host’s responses to stressors that cause bleaching, disease, and other deleterious effects can elucidate how they may mediate, ameliorate, and exacerbate interactions between the coral and the surrounding environment. At the same time tracking coral bacteria dynamics can reveal previously undiscovered mechanisms of coral resilience, acclimatization, and evolutionary adaptation. Although modern techniques have reduced the cost of conducting high-throughput sequencing of coral microbes, to explore the composition, function, and dynamics of coral-associated bacteria, it is necessary that the entire procedure, from collection to sequencing, and subsequent analysis be carried out in an objective and effective way. Corals represent a difficult host with which to work, and unique steps in the process of microbiome assessment are necessary to avoid inaccuracies or unusable data in microbiome libraries, such as off-target amplification of host sequences. Here, we review, compare and contrast, and recommend methods for sample collection, preservation, and processing (e.g., DNA extraction) pipelines to best generate 16S amplicon libraries with the aim of tracking coral microbiome dynamics. We also discuss some basic quality assurance and general bioinformatic methods to analyze the diversity, composition, and taxonomic profiles of the microbiomes. This review aims to be a generalizable guide for researchers interested in starting and modifying the molecular biology aspects of coral microbiome research, highlighting best practices and tricks of the trade. 

Large-scale microbiome studies investigating disease-inducing microbial roles base their findings on differences between microbial count data in contrasting environments (e.g., stool samples between cases and controls). These microbiome survey studies are often impeded by small sample sizes and database bias. Combining data from multiple survey studies often results in obvious batch effects, even when DNA preparation and sequencing methods are identical. Relatedly, predictive models trained on one microbial DNA dataset often do not generalize to outside datasets. In this study, we address these limitations by applying word embedding algorithms (GloVe) and PCA transformation to ASV data from the American Gut Project and generating translation matrices that can be applied to any 16S rRNA V4 region gut microbiome sequencing study. Because these approaches contextualize microbial occurrences in a larger dataset while reducing dimensionality of the feature space, they can improve generalization of predictive models that predict host phenotype from stool associated gut microbiota. The GMEmbeddings R package contains GloVe and PCA embedding transformation matrices at 50, 100 and 250 dimensions, each learned using ∼15,000 samples from the American Gut Project. It currently supports the alignment, matching, and matrix multiplication to allow users to transform their V4 16S rRNA data into these embedding spaces. We show how to correlate the properties in the new embedding space to KEGG functional pathways for biological interpretation of results. Lastly, we provide benchmarking on six gut microbiome datasets describing three phenotypes to demonstrate the ability of embedding-based microbiome classifiers to generalize to independent datasets. Future iterations of GMEmbeddings will include embedding transformation matrices for other biological systems. Available at: https://github.com/MaudeDavidLab/GMEmbeddings . 

ABSTRACT A growing body of research has established that the microbiome can mediate the dynamics and functional capacities of diverse biological systems. Yet, we understand little about what governs the response of these microbial communities to host or environmental changes. Most efforts to model microbiomes focus on defining the relationships between the microbiome, host, and environmental features within a specified study system and therefore fail to capture those that may be evident across multiple systems. In parallel with these developments in microbiome research, computer scientists have developed a variety of machine learning tools that can identify subtle, but informative, patterns from complex data. Here, we recommend using deep transfer learning to resolve microbiome patterns that transcend study systems. By leveraging diverse public data sets in an unsupervised way, such models can learn contextual relationships between features and build on those patterns to perform subsequent tasks (e.g., classification) within specific biological contexts. 

Coral reefs are declining worldwide primarily because of bleaching and subsequent mortality resulting from thermal stress. Currently, extensive efforts to engage in more holistic research and restoration endeavors have considerably expanded the techniques applied to examine coral samples. Despite such advances, coral bleaching and restoration studies are often conducted within a specific disciplinary focus, where specimens are collected, preserved, and archived in ways that are not always conducive to further downstream analyses by specialists in other disciplines. This approach may prevent the full utilization of unexpended specimens, leading to siloed research, duplicative efforts, unnecessary loss of additional corals to research endeavors, and overall increased costs. A recent US National Science Foundation-sponsored workshop set out to consolidate our collective knowledge across the disciplines of Omics, Physiology, and Microscopy and Imaging regarding the methods used for coral sample collection, preservation, and archiving. Here, we highlight knowledge gaps and propose some simple steps for collecting, preserving, and archiving coral-bleaching specimens that can increase the impact of individual coral bleaching and restoration studies, as well as foster additional analyses and future discoveries through collaboration. Rapid freezing of samples in liquid nitrogen or placing at −80 °C to −20 °C is optimal for most Omics and Physiology studies with a few exceptions; however, freezing samples removes the potential for many Microscopy and Imaging-based analyses due to the alteration of tissue integrity during freezing. For Microscopy and Imaging, samples are best stored in aldehydes. The use of sterile gloves and receptacles during collection supports the downstream analysis of host-associated bacterial and viral communities which are particularly germane to disease and restoration efforts. Across all disciplines, the use of aseptic techniques during collection, preservation, and archiving maximizes the research potential of coral specimens and allows for the greatest number of possible downstream analyses. 

ABSTRACT Shotgun metagenomic sequencing has transformed our understanding of microbial community ecology. However, preparing metagenomic libraries for high-throughput DNA sequencing remains a costly, labor-intensive, and time-consuming procedure, which in turn limits the utility of metagenomes. Several library preparation procedures have recently been developed to offset these costs, but it is unclear how these newer procedures compare to current standards in the field. In particular, it is not clear if all such procedures perform equally well across different types of microbial communities or if features of the biological samples being processed (e.g., DNA amount) impact the accuracy of the approach. To address these questions, we assessed how five different shotgun DNA sequence library preparation methods, including the commonly used Nextera Flex kit, perform when applied to metagenomic DNA. We measured each method’s ability to produce metagenomic data that accurately represent the underlying taxonomic and genetic diversity of the community. We performed these analyses across a range of microbial community types (e.g., soil, coral associated, and mouse gut associated) and input DNA amounts. We find that the type of community and amount of input DNA influence each method’s performance, indicating that careful consideration may be needed when selecting between methods, especially for low-complexity communities. However, the cost-effective preparation methods that we assessed are generally comparable to the current gold-standard Nextera DNA Flex kit for high-complexity communities. Overall, the results from this analysis will help expand and even facilitate access to metagenomic approaches in future studies. IMPORTANCE Metagenomic library preparation methods and sequencing technologies continue to advance rapidly, allowing researchers to characterize microbial communities in previously underexplored environmental samples and systems. However, widely accepted standardized library preparation methods can be cost-prohibitive. Newly available approaches may be less expensive, but their efficacy in comparison to standardized methods remains unknown. In this study, we compared five different metagenomic library preparation methods. We evaluated each method across a range of microbial communities varying in complexity and quantity of input DNA. Our findings demonstrate the importance of considering sample properties, including community type, composition, and DNA amount, when choosing the most appropriate metagenomic library preparation method.