Comparison of Collection Methods for Fecal Samples in Microbiome Studies

Emily Vogtmann, Jun Chen, Amnon Amir, Jianxin Shi, Christian C Abnet, Heidi Nelson, Rob Knight, Nicholas Chia, Rashmi Sinha, Emily Vogtmann, Jun Chen, Amnon Amir, Jianxin Shi, Christian C Abnet, Heidi Nelson, Rob Knight, Nicholas Chia, Rashmi Sinha

Abstract

Prospective cohort studies are needed to assess the relationship between the fecal microbiome and human health and disease. To evaluate fecal collection methods, we determined technical reproducibility, stability at ambient temperature, and accuracy of 5 fecal collection methods (no additive, 95% ethanol, RNAlater Stabilization Solution, fecal occult blood test cards, and fecal immunochemical test tubes). Fifty-two healthy volunteers provided fecal samples at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, in 2014. One set from each sample collection method was frozen immediately, and a second set was incubated at room temperature for 96 hours and then frozen. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated for the relative abundance of 3 phyla, 2 alpha diversity metrics, and 4 beta diversity metrics. Technical reproducibility was high, with ICCs for duplicate fecal samples between 0.64 and 1.00. Stability for most methods was generally high, although the ICCs were below 0.60 for 95% ethanol in metrics that were more sensitive to relative abundance. When compared with fecal samples that were frozen immediately, the ICCs were below 0.60 for the metrics that were sensitive to relative abundance; however, the remaining 2 alpha diversity and 3 beta diversity metrics were all relatively accurate, with ICCs above 0.60. In conclusion, all fecal sample collection methods appear relatively reproducible, stable, and accurate. Future studies could use these collection methods for microbiome analyses.

Keywords: feces; microbiota; specimen collection.

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Technical reproducibility of replicates frozen immediately (A) and frozen after incubation at room temperature for 4 days (B) for the evaluation of the relative abundance of 3 phyla, 2 alpha diversity metrics, and the first principal coordinate of 4 beta diversity metrics using intraclass correlation coefficients, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, 2014. White columns indicate replicates stored in no solution, striped columns indicate those stored in fecal immunochemical test tubes, gray columns indicate those stored on fecal occult blood test cards, dotted columns indicate those stored in RNAlater Stabilization Solution (Ambion, Austin, Texas), and black columns indicate those stored in 95% ethanol. BC, Bray-Curtis distance; OTU, operational taxonomic unit; PC1, principal coordinate analysis component 1; SDI, Shannon diversity index.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Stability of fecal samples incubated at room temperature for 4 days and then frozen compared with that of samples frozen immediately for the evaluation of relative abundance of 3 phyla, 2 alpha diversity metrics, and the first principal coordinate of 4 beta diversity metrics using intraclass correlation coefficients, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, 2014. Striped columns indicate those stored in fecal immunochemical test tubes, gray columns indicate those stored on fecal occult blood test cards, dotted columns indicate those stored in RNAlater Stabilization Solution (Ambion, Austin, Texas), and black columns indicate those stored in 95% ethanol. BC, Bray-Curtis distance; OTU, operational taxonomic unit; PC1, principal coordinate analysis component 1; SDI, Shannon diversity index.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Accuracy of fecal samples frozen immediately compared with the gold standard, which was considered to be the no-additive sample, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, 2014. Intraclass correlation coefficients (A) and Spearman correlation coefficients (B) were calculated for the relative abundance of 3 phyla, 2 alpha diversity metrics, and the first principal coordinate of 4 beta diversity metrics. Striped columns indicate those stored in fecal immunochemical test tubes, gray columns indicate those stored on fecal occult blood test cards, dotted columns indicate those stored in RNAlater Stabilization Solution (Ambion, Austin, Texas), and black columns indicate those stored in 95% ethanol. BC, Bray-Curtis distance; OTU, operational taxonomic unit; PC1, principal coordinate analysis component 1; SDI, Shannon diversity index.

References

    1. Ley RE. Obesity and the human microbiome. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2010;26(1):5–11.
    1. Kostic AD, Xavier RJ, Gevers D. The microbiome in inflammatory bowel disease: current status and the future ahead. Gastroenterology. 2014;146(6):1489–1499.
    1. Vogtmann E, Goedert JJ. Epidemiologic studies of the human microbiome and cancer. Br J Cancer. 2016;114(3):237–242.
    1. Feng Q, Liang S, Jia H, et al. . Gut microbiome development along the colorectal adenoma-carcinoma sequence. Nat Commun. 2015;6:6528.
    1. Weir TL, Manter DK, Sheflin AM, et al. . Stool microbiome and metabolome differences between colorectal cancer patients and healthy adults. PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e70803.
    1. Wu N, Yang X, Zhang R, et al. . Dysbiosis signature of fecal microbiota in colorectal cancer patients. Microb Ecol. 2013;66(2):462–470.
    1. Zeller G, Tap J, Voigt AY, et al. . Potential of fecal microbiota for early-stage detection of colorectal cancer. Mol Syst Biol. 2014;10:766.
    1. Ahn J, Sinha R, Pei Z, et al. . Human gut microbiome and risk for colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(24):1907–1911.
    1. Yu J, Feng Q, Wong SH, et al. . Metagenomic analysis of faecal microbiome as a tool towards targeted non-invasive biomarkers for colorectal cancer [published online ahead of print September 25, 2015]. Gut. (doi:).
    1. Sinha R, Chen J, Amir A, et al. . Collecting fecal samples for microbiome analyses in epidemiology studies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016;25(2):407–416.
    1. Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, Walters WA, et al. . Ultra-high- throughput microbial community analysis on the Illumina HiSeq and MiSeq platforms. ISME J. 2012;6(8):1621–1624.
    1. Walters WA, Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, et al. . PrimerProspector: de novo design and taxonomic analysis of barcoded polymerase chain reaction primers. Bioinformatics. 2011;27(8):1159–1161.
    1. Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, et al. . QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods. 2010;7(5):335–336.
    1. DeSantis TZ, Hugenholtz P, Larsen N, et al. . Greengenes, a chimera-checked 16S rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72(7):5069–5072.
    1. Cole JR, Wang Q, Cardenas E, et al. . The Ribosomal Database Project: improved alignments and new tools for rRNA analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37(Database issue):D141–D145.
    1. McMurdie PJ, Holmes S. phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e61217.
    1. Chen J, Bittinger K, Charlson ES, et al. . Associating microbiome composition with environmental covariates using generalized UniFrac distances. Bioinformatics. 2012;28(16):2106–2113.
    1. Cardona S, Eck A, Cassellas M, et al. . Storage conditions of intestinal microbiota matter in metagenomic analysis. BMC Microbiol. 2012;12:158.
    1. Carroll IM, Ringel-Kulka T, Siddle JP, et al. . Characterization of the fecal microbiota using high-throughput sequencing reveals a stable microbial community during storage. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e46953.
    1. Choo JM, Leong LE, Rogers GB. Sample storage conditions significantly influence faecal microbiome profiles. Sci Rep. 2015;5:16350.
    1. Dominianni C, Wu J, Hayes RB, et al. . Comparison of methods for fecal microbiome biospecimen collection. BMC Microbiol. 2014;14:103.
    1. Flores R, Shi J, Yu G, et al. . Collection media and delayed freezing effects on microbial composition of human stool. Microbiome. 2015;3:33.
    1. Franzosa EA, Morgan XC, Segata N, et al. . Relating the metatranscriptome and metagenome of the human gut. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111(22):E2329–E2338.
    1. Gorzelak MA, Gill SK, Tasnim N, et al. . Methods for improving human gut microbiome data by reducing variability through sample processing and storage of stool. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0134802.
    1. Lauber CL, Zhou N, Gordon JI, et al. . Effect of storage conditions on the assessment of bacterial community structure in soil and human-associated samples. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2010;307(1):80–86.
    1. Nechvatal JM, Ram JL, Basson MD, et al. . Fecal collection, ambient preservation, and DNA extraction for PCR amplification of bacterial and human markers from human feces. J Microbiol Methods. 2008;72(2):124–132.
    1. Ott SJ, Musfeldt M, Timmis KN, et al. . In vitro alterations of intestinal bacterial microbiota in fecal samples during storage. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2004;50(4):237–245.
    1. Roesch LF, Casella G, Simell O, et al. . Influence of fecal sample storage on bacterial community diversity. Open Microbiol J. 2009;3:40–46.
    1. Tedjo DI, Jonkers DM, Savelkoul PH, et al. . The effect of sampling and storage on the fecal microbiota composition in healthy and diseased subjects. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0126685.
    1. Voigt AY, Costea PI, Kultima JR, et al. . Temporal and technical variability of human gut metagenomes. Genome Biol. 2015;16:73.
    1. Wu GD, Lewis JD, Hoffmann C, et al. . Sampling and pyrosequencing methods for characterizing bacterial communities in the human gut using 16S sequence tags. BMC Microbiol. 2010;10:206.
    1. Song SJ, Amir A, Metcalf JL, et al. . Preservation methods differ in fecal microbiome stability, affecting suitability for field studies. mSystems. 2016;1(3):e00021–00016.
    1. Baxter NT, Koumpouras CC, Rogers MA, et al. . DNA from fecal immunochemical test can replace stool for detection of colonic lesions using a microbiota-based model. Microbiome. 2016;4(1):59.
    1. Sinha R, Vogtmann E, Chen J, et al. . Fecal microbiome in epidemiologic studies-response. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016;25(5):870–871.
    1. Bahl MI, Bergström A, Licht TR. Freezing fecal samples prior to DNA extraction affects the Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes ratio determined by downstream quantitative PCR analysis. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2012;329(2):193–197.
    1. Human Microbiome Project Consortium Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature. 2012;486(7402):207–214.

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner