It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Microbial ecology studies are often performed through extraction of metagenomic DNA followed by amplification and sequencing of a marker. It is known that each step may bias the results. These biases have been explored for the study of bacterial communities, but rarely for fungi. Our aim was therefore to evaluate methods for the study of the gut mycobiome. We first evaluated DNA extraction methods in fungal cultures relevant to the gut. Afterwards, to assess how these methods would behave with an actual sample, stool from a donor was spiked with cells from the same cultures. We found that different extraction kits favour some species and bias against others. In terms of amplicon sequencing, we evaluated five primer sets, two for ITS2 and one for ITS1, 18S and 28S rRNA. Results showed that 18S rRNA outperformed the other markers: it was able to amplify all the species in the mock community and to discriminate among them. ITS primers showed both amplification and sequencing biases, the latter related to the variable length of the product. We identified several biases in the characterisation of the gut mycobiome and showed how crucial it is to be aware of these before drawing conclusions from the results of these studies.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details




1 Gastroenterology Research Unit, Department of Cellular & Molecular Physiology, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
2 Centre for Genomic Research (CGR), University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; Teagasc Food Research Centre, Moorepark, Cork, Ireland
3 Centre for Genomic Research (CGR), University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
4 School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
5 Gastroenterology Research Unit, Department of Cellular & Molecular Physiology, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Gastroenterology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
6 Earlham Institute, Norwich, UK
7 Liverpool Clinical Laboratories Directorate of Infection and Immunity, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK