Comparative analysis of amplicon and metagenomic sequencing methods reveals key features in the evolution of animal metaorganisms

Philipp Rausch, Malte Rühlemann, Britt M Hermes, Shauni Doms, Tal Dagan, Katja Dierking, Hanna Domin, Sebastian Fraune, Jakob von Frieling, Ute Hentschel, Femke-Anouska Heinsen, Marc Höppner, Martin T Jahn, Cornelia Jaspers, Kohar Annie B Kissoyan, Daniela Langfeldt, Ateequr Rehman, Thorsten B H Reusch, Thomas Roeder, Ruth A Schmitz, Hinrich Schulenburg, Ryszard Soluch, Felix Sommer, Eva Stukenbrock, Nancy Weiland-Bräuer, Philip Rosenstiel, Andre Franke, Thomas Bosch, John F Baines, Philipp Rausch, Malte Rühlemann, Britt M Hermes, Shauni Doms, Tal Dagan, Katja Dierking, Hanna Domin, Sebastian Fraune, Jakob von Frieling, Ute Hentschel, Femke-Anouska Heinsen, Marc Höppner, Martin T Jahn, Cornelia Jaspers, Kohar Annie B Kissoyan, Daniela Langfeldt, Ateequr Rehman, Thorsten B H Reusch, Thomas Roeder, Ruth A Schmitz, Hinrich Schulenburg, Ryszard Soluch, Felix Sommer, Eva Stukenbrock, Nancy Weiland-Bräuer, Philip Rosenstiel, Andre Franke, Thomas Bosch, John F Baines

Abstract

Background: The interplay between hosts and their associated microbiome is now recognized as a fundamental basis of the ecology, evolution, and development of both players. These interdependencies inspired a new view of multicellular organisms as "metaorganisms." The goal of the Collaborative Research Center "Origin and Function of Metaorganisms" is to understand why and how microbial communities form long-term associations with hosts from diverse taxonomic groups, ranging from sponges to humans in addition to plants.

Methods: In order to optimize the choice of analysis procedures, which may differ according to the host organism and question at hand, we systematically compared the two main technical approaches for profiling microbial communities, 16S rRNA gene amplicon and metagenomic shotgun sequencing across our panel of ten host taxa. This includes two commonly used 16S rRNA gene regions and two amplification procedures, thus totaling five different microbial profiles per host sample.

Conclusion: While 16S rRNA gene-based analyses are subject to much skepticism, we demonstrate that many aspects of bacterial community characterization are consistent across methods. The resulting insight facilitates the selection of appropriate methods across a wide range of host taxa. Overall, we recommend single- over multi-step amplification procedures, and although exceptions and trade-offs exist, the V3 V4 over the V1 V2 region of the 16S rRNA gene. Finally, by contrasting taxonomic and functional profiles and performing phylogenetic analysis, we provide important and novel insight into broad evolutionary patterns among metaorganisms, whereby the transition of animals from an aquatic to a terrestrial habitat marks a major event in the evolution of host-associated microbial composition.

Keywords: Animal microbiome; Evolution; Holobiont; Metaorganism; Phylosymbiosis.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Average community composition of bacteria (a) and fungi (b) in the mock community samples sequenced via metagenomic shotgun and 16S rRNA gene amplicon techniques (amplicon: V1 V2, V3 V4, one-step, two-step; shotgun: MEGAN based classification (short reads)). c Bacterial genus-level alpha diversity estimates in comparison to the expected community value. d Principle coordinate analysis of the Bray-Curtis distance between methods and the expected community. Ellipses represent standard deviations of points within the respective groups. Sample sizes for the different approaches are Nshotgun = 4, NV1V2-one-step = 3, NV1V2-two-step = 3, NV3V4-one-step = 3, and NV1V2-two-step = 3
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Comparison of bacterial genus richness (a) and Shannon H (b) based on 16S rRNA gene amplicon and shotgun derived genus profiles based on MEGAN highlighting the differences between variable regions, amplification methods, and metagenomic classifier, as well as between the different host organisms. Colors show significance of amplification methods (a, c) or pairwise comparisons of methods (b, d) based on pairwise t tests with Hommel P value adjustment (a, b), and approximate Wilcoxon test for the comparison between environmental categories (c, d). Mean values are shown in gray symbols in plots a and b. Sample sizes are indicated below the samples
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Non-metric multidimensional scaling of Bray-Curtis distances based on genus abundance profiles derived from the different 16S rRNA gene amplicon methods (V1 V2/V3 V4, one-step/two-step) and shotgun-derived genus profiles highlighting a host differences and b differences between host environments (terrestrial/aquatic; see Table 2). Non-metric multidimensional scaling of Jaccard distances based on genus presence/absence profiles derived from the different 16S rRNA gene amplicon methods and shotgun-derived genus profiles highlighting c host taxon differences and d differences between host environments (terrestrial/aquatic; see Table 2). Both panels show a separation based on host organisms and environments and not by method. Large symbols indicate the centroid of the respective host groups and vertical lines help to determine their position in space. Sample sizes are equal to Fig. 2 (see also Additional file 2: Table S1)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Functional diversities were derived from the number and abundances of MEGAN-based EggNOG annotations. Functional richness between a host organisms and b host environmental groups based is displayed, as well as functional differences between hosts (c) and environmental groups (d). Non-metric multidimensional scaling is based on Bray-Curtis distances on the differences in functional composition between the host organisms displayed (c, d; see Table 3). Large symbols indicate the centroid of the respective groups. Functional variation of communities based on pairwise Bray-Curtis distances within host organism groups and environmental groups. Sample sizes for the host taxa are N = 5, except for D. melanogaster gut tissue (N = 10; see Additional file 2: Table S1)
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
a Differences in the Nearest Sequenced Taxon Index (imputation success) between variable regions (average: Z = 0.3869, P = 0.7017, approximate Wilcoxon test; probability: odds ratio = 1.5941, P = 0.1402, Fisher’s test) and amplification method (Z = 0.0667, P = 0.9472, approximate Wilcoxon test; probability: odds ratio = 1.5511, P = 0.1436, Fisher’s test). b Procrustes correlation of imputed- and shotgun-based COG categories among different techniques, with significantly higher correspondence between imputed and measured functional profiles in the V1 V2 compared to the V3 V4 region (F1,18 = 7.8537, P = 0.0118, ANOVA). c Non-metric multidimensional scaling displays Bray-Curtis distances based on functional category abundances (COG categories) derived from PICRUSt (V1 V2/V3 V4, one-step/two-step) and shotgun-based approaches (MEGAN, single assembly). Ellipses represent standard deviations of points within the respective groups
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Multivariate correlation (Procrustes analyses) of phylogenetic distance among host organisms and community distances based on (a) shared presence among samples or (b) differences in abundance in 16S rRNA gene amplicon or shotgun-derived community profiles at different taxonomic cutoffs (Phylum to Genus, additional species level OTUs for amplicon-based profiles). Similar results are shown for the correspondence between phylogenetic distances among samples and their distances based on (a) shared presence or (b) abundance differences in their functional composition. The functional composition was derived from COGs and COG categories imputed from PICRUSt, EggNOG-derived COG categories and genes, and CAZY functions. All correlations are significant at P ≤ 0.05 (10,000 permutations)

References

    1. Bosch TCG, McFall-Ngai MJ. Metaorganisms as the new frontier. Zoology. 2011;114(4):185–190. doi: 10.1016/j.zool.2011.04.001.
    1. McFall-Ngai M, Hadfield MG, Bosch TCG, Carey HV, Domazet-Lošo T, Douglas AE, Dubilier N, Eberl G, Fukami T, Gilbert SF, et al. Animals in a bacterial world, a new imperative for the life sciences. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110(9):3229–3236. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1218525110.
    1. Carding S, Verbeke K, Vipond DT, Corfe BM, Owen LJ. Dysbiosis of the gut microbiota in disease. Microb Ecol Health Dis. 2015;26(1):26191.
    1. Morgan XC, Huttenhower C. Chapter 12: human microbiome analysis. PLoS Comput Biol. 2012;8(12):e1002808. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002808.
    1. Langille MGI, Zaneveld J, Caporaso JG, McDonald D, Knights D, Reyes JA, Clemente JC, Burkepile DE, Vega Thurber RL, Knight R, et al. Predictive functional profiling of microbial communities using 16S rRNA marker gene sequences. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31(9):814–821. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2676.
    1. Hiergeist A, Glasner J, Reischl U, Gessner A. Analyses of intestinal microbiota: culture versus sequencing. ILAR J. 2015;56(2):228–240. doi: 10.1093/ilar/ilv017.
    1. Tremblay J, Singh K, Fern A, Kirton ES, He S, Woyke T, Lee J, Chen F, Dangl JL, Tringe SG. Primer and platform effects on 16S rRNA tag sequencing. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:771.
    1. Gohl DM, Vangay P, Garbe J, MacLean A, Hauge A, Becker A, Gould TJ, Clayton JB, Johnson TJ, Hunter R, et al. Systematic improvement of amplicon marker gene methods for increased accuracy in microbiome studies. Nat Biotechnol. 2016;34(9):942–949. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3601.
    1. Walsh AM, Crispie F, O’Sullivan O, Finnegan L, Claesson MJ, Cotter PD. Species classifier choice is a key consideration when analysing low-complexity food microbiome data. Microbiome. 2018;6(1):50. doi: 10.1186/s40168-018-0437-0.
    1. Faith JJ, Guruge JL, Charbonneau M, Subramanian S, Seedorf H, Goodman AL, Clemente JC, Knight R, Heath AC, Leibel RL, et al. The long-term stability of the human gut microbiota. Science. 2013;341(6141):1237439. doi: 10.1126/science.1237439.
    1. Jovel J, Patterson J, Wang W, Hotte N, O'Keefe S, Mitchel T, Perry T, Kao D, Mason AL, Madsen KL, et al. Characterization of the gut microbiome using 16S or shotgun metagenomics. Front Microbiol. 2016;7(459):459.
    1. Rinke C, Schwientek P, Sczyrba A, Ivanova NN, Anderson IJ, Cheng J-F, Darling A, Malfatti S, Swan BK, Gies EA, et al. Insights into the phylogeny and coding potential of microbial dark matter. Nature. 2013;499(7459):431–437. doi: 10.1038/nature12352.
    1. Huson D, Auch A, Qi J, Schuster S. MEGAN analysis of metagenomic data. Genome Res. 2007;17(3):377–386. doi: 10.1101/gr.5969107.
    1. Hong Nhung P, Ohkusu K, Mishima N, Noda M, Monir Shah M, Sun X, Hayashi M, Ezaki T. Phylogeny and species identification of the family Enterobacteriaceae based on dnaJ sequences. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007;58(2):153–161. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2006.12.019.
    1. De Cáceres M, Legendre P, Moretti M. Improving indicator species analysis by combining groups of sites. Oikos. 2010;119(10):1674–1684. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18334.x.
    1. Huerta-Cepas J, Szklarczyk D, Forslund K, Cook H, Heller D, Walter MC, Rattei T, Mende DR, Sunagawa S, Kuhn M, et al. eggNOG 4.5: a hierarchical orthology framework with improved functional annotations for eukaryotic, prokaryotic and viral sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(1):286–293. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv1248.
    1. Cantarel BL. The carbohydrate-active EnZymes database (CAZy): an expert resource for glycogenomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37(Database issue):233–238. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkn663.
    1. Fink C, von Frieling J, Knop M, Roeder T. Drosophila Fecal Sampling. Bio-protocol 2017;7:e2547.
    1. Brooks AW, Kohl KD, Brucker RM, van Opstal EJ, Bordenstein SR. Phylosymbiosis: relationships and functional effects of microbial communities across host evolutionary history. PLoS Biol. 2016;14(11):e2000225. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2000225.
    1. Groussin M, Mazel F, Sanders JG, Smillie CS, Lavergne S, Thuiller W, Alm EJ. Unraveling the processes shaping mammalian gut microbiomes over evolutionary time. Nat Commun. 2017;8:14319. doi: 10.1038/ncomms14319.
    1. Peres-Neto P, Jackson D. How well do multivariate data sets match? The advantages of a Procrustean superimposition approach over the Mantel test. Oecologia. 2001;129(2):169–178. doi: 10.1007/s004420100720.
    1. Gittleman JL, Kot M. Adaptation: statistics and a null model for estimating phylogenetic effects. Syst Zool. 1990;39(3):227–241. doi: 10.2307/2992183.
    1. Murray AE, Rack FR, Zook R, Williams MJM, Higham ML, Broe M, Kaufmann RS, Daly M. Microbiome composition and diversity of the ice-dwelling sea anemone, Edwardsiella andrillae. Integr Comp Biol. 2016;56(4):542–555. doi: 10.1093/icb/icw095.
    1. Schneiker S, dos Santos VAPM, Bartels D, Bekel T, Brecht M, Buhrmester J, Chernikova TN, Denaro R, Ferrer M, Gertler C, et al. Genome sequence of the ubiquitous hydrocarbon-degrading marine bacterium Alcanivorax borkumensis. Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24(8):997. doi: 10.1038/nbt1232.
    1. Hentschel U, Piel J, Degnan SM, Taylor MW. Genomic insights into the marine sponge microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012;10(9):641–654. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2839.
    1. Wu JY, Jiang XT, Jiang YX, Lu SY, Zou F, Zhou HW. Effects of polymerase, template dilution and cycle number on PCR based 16 S rRNA diversity analysis using the deep sequencing method. BMC Microbiol. 2010;10:255. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-10-255.
    1. D’Amore R, Ijaz UZ, Schirmer M, Kenny JG, Gregory R, Darby AC, Shakya M, Podar M, Quince C, Hall N. A comprehensive benchmarking study of protocols and sequencing platforms for 16S rRNA community profiling. BMC Genomics. 2016;17(1):55. doi: 10.1186/s12864-015-2194-9.
    1. Fadrosh D, Ma B, Gajer P, Sengamalay N, Ott S, Brotman R, Ravel J. An improved dual-indexing approach for multiplexed 16S rRNA gene sequencing on the Illumina MiSeq platform. Microbiome. 2014;2(1):6. doi: 10.1186/2049-2618-2-6.
    1. Highlander S. Mock Community Analysis. In: Nelson EK, editor. Encyclopedia of Metagenomics. New York: Springer New York; 2013. pp. 1–7.
    1. Costea PI, Zeller G, Sunagawa S, Pelletier E, Alberti A, Levenez F, Tramontano M, Driessen M, Hercog R, Jung F-E, et al. Towards standards for human fecal sample processing in metagenomic studies. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35(11):1069–1076. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3960.
    1. Westcott SL, Schloss PD. De novo clustering methods outperform reference-based methods for assigning 16S rRNA gene sequences to operational taxonomic units. PeerJ. 2015;3:e1487. doi: 10.7717/peerj.1487.
    1. Werner JJ, Koren O, Hugenholtz P, DeSantis TZ, Walters WA, Caporaso JG, Angenent LT, Knight R, Ley RE. Impact of training sets on classification of high-throughput bacterial 16s rRNA gene surveys. ISME J. 2012;6(1):94–103. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2011.82.
    1. Sczyrba A, Hofmann P, Belmann P, Koslicki D, Janssen S, Dröge J, Gregor I, Majda S, Fiedler J, Dahms E, et al. Critical assessment of metagenome interpretation—a benchmark of metagenomics software. Nat Methods. 2017;14(11):1063–1071. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.4458.
    1. Lindgreen S, Adair KL, Gardner PP. An evaluation of the accuracy and speed of metagenome analysis tools. Sci Rep. 2016;6:19233. doi: 10.1038/srep19233.
    1. Xu Z, Malmer D, Langille MGI, Way SF, Knight R. Which is more important for classifying microbial communities: who’s there or what they can do? ISME J. 2014;8(12):2357–2359. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2014.157.
    1. Ochman H, Elwyn S, Moran NA. Calibrating bacterial evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96(22):12638–12643. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.22.12638.
    1. Benton MJ. The origins of modern biodiversity on land. Philos Trans R Soc B. 2010;365(1558):3667–3679. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0269.
    1. Rota-Stabelli O, Daley Allison C, Pisani D. Molecular timetrees reveal a Cambrian colonization of land and a new scenario for ecdysozoan evolution. Curr Biol. 2013;23(5):392–398. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.01.026.
    1. Kuo CH, Ochman H. Inferring clocks when lacking rocks: the variable rates of molecular evolution in bacteria. Biol Direct. 2009;4:35. doi: 10.1186/1745-6150-4-35.
    1. Lebreton F, Manson AL, Saavedra JT, Straub TJ, Earl AM, Gilmore MS. Tracing the Enterococci from Paleozoic origins to the hospital. Cell. 2017;169(5):849–861.e813. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.04.027.
    1. Bishop JR, Gagneux P. Evolution of carbohydrate antigens—microbial forces shaping host glycomes? Glycobiology. 2007;17(5):23R–34R. doi: 10.1093/glycob/cwm005.
    1. Pickard JM, Maurice CF, Kinnebrew MA, Abt MC, Schenten D, Golovkina TV, Bogatyrev SR, Ismagilov RF, Pamer EG, Turnbaugh PJ, et al. Rapid fucosylation of intestinal epithelium sustains host-commensal symbiosis in sickness. Nature. 2014;514(7524):638–641. doi: 10.1038/nature13823.
    1. Schwartzman JA, Koch E, Heath-Heckman EAC, Zhou L, Kremer N, McFall-Ngai MJ, Ruby EG. The chemistry of negotiation: rhythmic, glycan-driven acidification in a symbiotic conversation. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112(2):566–571. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1418580112.
    1. Martens EC, Chiang HC, Gordon JI. Mucosal glycan foraging enhances fitness and transmission of a saccharolytic human gut bacterial symbiont. Cell Host Microbe. 2008;4(5):447–457. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2008.09.007.
    1. Boulnois GJ, Roberts IS. Genetics of capsular polysaccharide production in bacteria. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1990;150:1–18.
    1. Mahdavi J, Pirinccioglu N, Oldfield NJ, Carlsohn E, Stoof J, Aslam A, Self T, Cawthraw SA, Petrovska L, Colborne N, et al. A novel O-linked glycan modulates Campylobacter jejuni major outer membrane protein-mediated adhesion to human histo-blood group antigens and chicken colonization. Open Biol. 2014;4(1):130202. doi: 10.1098/rsob.130202.
    1. Tounkang S, Premkumar D, Gustavo S, Nathalie B, Yann B, Patricia C, Florence L, Olivier N, Brigitte G, Anne L, et al. Capsular glucan and intracellular glycogen of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: biosynthesis and impact on the persistence in mice. Mol Microbiol. 2008;70(3):762–774. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2008.06445.x.
    1. Roberts IS. The biochemistry and genetics of capsular polysaccharide production in bacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol. 1996;50(1):285–315. doi: 10.1146/annurev.micro.50.1.285.
    1. Martin M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet J. 2011;17(1):10. doi: 10.14806/ej.17.1.200.
    1. Joshi N, Fass J. Sickle: A sliding-window, adaptive, quality-based trimming tool for FastQ files 1.33 edn. 2011.
    1. Rognes T, Flouri T, Nichols B, Quince C, Mahé F. VSEARCH: a versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ. 2016;4:e2584. doi: 10.7717/peerj.2584.
    1. Hannon G: FASTX-Toolkit. In. ; 2010.
    1. Edgar RC. UTAX algorithm. 2015.
    1. Edgar RC. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics. 2010;26(19):2460–2461. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq461.
    1. Edgar RC, Haas BJ, Clemente JC, Quince C, Knight R. UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection. Bioinformatics. 2011;27(16):2194–2200. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr381.
    1. Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, Cole JR. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73(16):5261–5267. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00062-07.
    1. Cole JR, Chai B, Marsh TL, Farris RJ, Wang Q, Kulam SA, Chandra S, McGarrell DM, Schmidt TM, Garrity GM, et al. The ribosomal database project (RDP-II): previewing a new autoaligner that allows regular updates and the new prokaryotic taxonomy. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003;31(1):442–443. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkg039.
    1. McDonald D, Price MN, Goodrich J, Nawrocki EP, DeSantis TZ, Probst A, Andersen GL, Knight R, Hugenholtz P. An improved Greengenes taxonomy with explicit ranks for ecological and evolutionary analyses of bacteria and archaea. ISME J. 2012;6(3):610–618. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2011.139.
    1. Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(15):2114–2120. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170.
    1. Schmieder R, Edwards R. Fast identification and removal of sequence contamination from genomic and metagenomic datasets. PLoS One. 2011;6(3):e17288. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017288.
    1. Bushnell B, Rood J: BBTools bioinformatics tools, including BBMap. In., 37.28 edn. ; 2017.
    1. Buchfink B, Xie C, Huson DH. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat Methods. 2015;12(1):59–60. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3176.
    1. Nurk S, Meleshko D, Korobeynikov A, Pevzner P: metaSPAdes: a new versatile de novo metagenomics assembler. arXiv preprint arXiv:160403071 2016.
    1. Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(14):2068–2069. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu153.
    1. Laslett D, Canback B. ARAGORN, a program to detect tRNA genes and tmRNA genes in nucleotide sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32(1):11–16. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh152.
    1. Kolbe DL, Eddy SR. Fast filtering for RNA homology search. Bioinformatics. 2011;27(22):3102–3109. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr545.
    1. Huerta-Cepas J, Forslund K, Coelho LP, Szklarczyk D, Jensen LJ, von Mering C, Bork P. Fast genome-wide functional annotation through orthology assignment by eggNOG-mapper. Mol Biol Evol. 2017;34(8):2115–2122. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msx148.
    1. Yin Y, Mao X, Yang J, Chen X, Mao F, Xu Y. dbCAN: a web resource for automated carbohydrate-active enzyme annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(1):445–451. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks479.
    1. Langmead B, Salzberg SL. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods. 2012;9(4):357–359. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1923.
    1. Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J, Homer N, Marth G, Abecasis G, Durbin R, Genome Project Data Processing S The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics. 2009;25(16):2078–2079. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352.
    1. Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ. CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 1994;22(22):4673–4680. doi: 10.1093/nar/22.22.4673.
    1. Felsenstein J. DNADIST -- Program to compute distance matrix from nucleotide sequences. 3.5c edn. 1993.
    1. Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. FastTree 2 – approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS One. 2010;5(3):e9490. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009490.
    1. Team RC . R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 3.3.2 edn. 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing.
    1. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, O'Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Wagner H. vegan: Community Ecology Package 1.17-6 edn. 2011.
    1. Legendre P, Anderson MJ. Distance-based redundancy analysis: testing multispecies responses in multifactorial ecological experiments. Ecol Monogr. 1999;69(1):1–24. doi: 10.1890/0012-9615(1999)069[0001:DBRATM];2.
    1. Anderson MJ. A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecology. 2001;26(1):32–46.
    1. Hothorn T, Hornik K, Van de Wiel MA, Zeileis A. A Lego system for conditional inference. Am Stat. 2006;60(3):257–263. doi: 10.1198/000313006X118430.
    1. Kembel SW, Cowan PD, Helmus MR, Cornwell WK, Morlon H, Ackerly DD, Blomberg SP, Webb CO. Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology. Bioinformatics. 2010;26(11):1463–1464. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq166.
    1. Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K. APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics. 2004;20(2):289–290. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg412.
    1. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, Team RDC . nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. 2011.
    1. Hommel G. A stagewise rejective multiple test procedure based on a modified Bonferroni test. Biometrika. 1988;75(2):383–386. doi: 10.1093/biomet/75.2.383.
    1. Benjamini Y, Yekutieli D. The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Ann Stat. 2001;29(4):1165–1188. doi: 10.1214/aos/1013699998.
    1. Wang J, Thingholm LB, Skieceviciene J, Rausch P, Kummen M, Hov JR, Degenhardt F, Heinsen F-A, Ruhlemann MC, Szymczak S, et al. Genome-wide association analysis identifies variation in vitamin D receptor and other host factors influencing the gut microbiota. Nat Genet. 2016;48(11):1396–1406. doi: 10.1038/ng.3695.
    1. Rausch P, Rehman A, Künzel S, Häsler R, Ott SJ, Schreiber S, Rosenstiel P, Franke A, Baines JF. Colonic mucosa-associated microbiota is influenced by an interaction of Crohn disease and FUT2 (Secretor) genotype. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011;108(47):19030–19035. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1106408108.

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever