Faecal sample storage without ethanol for up to 24 h followed by freezing performs better than storage with ethanol for shotgun metagenomic microbiome analysis in patients with inflammatory and non-inflammatory intestinal diseases and healthy controls.
Ida Marie Bruun Grønbæk, Sarah Mollerup, Sofie Ingdam Halkjær, Sarah Juel Paulsen, Mette Pinholt, Henrik Westh, Andreas Munk Petersen
{"title":"Faecal sample storage without ethanol for up to 24 h followed by freezing performs better than storage with ethanol for shotgun metagenomic microbiome analysis in patients with inflammatory and non-inflammatory intestinal diseases and healthy controls.","authors":"Ida Marie Bruun Grønbæk, Sarah Mollerup, Sofie Ingdam Halkjær, Sarah Juel Paulsen, Mette Pinholt, Henrik Westh, Andreas Munk Petersen","doi":"10.1186/s13104-024-06999-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The influence of different faecal collection methods on metagenomic analyses remains under discussion, and there is no general agreement on which collection method is preferable for gut microbiome research. We compared faecal samples collected in tubes without preservatives with those containing 10 mL of 96% ethanol for gut microbiome research when the timeframe from defecation to freezing at - 80 °C was up to 24 h. We aimed to compare the collection methods on faeces from participants with inflammatory and non-inflammatory gastrointestinal disorders and healthy controls to investigate the most suitable method when considering data yield, human fraction of sequencing reads, and ease of use. We also examined the faecal sample homogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Faeces collected in tubes without preservatives resulted in more sequencing reads compared to faeces collected in tubes with 96% ethanol and were also easier to handle. The human fraction of total reads in faeces collected in ethanol from participants with inflammatory bowel disease was higher than all other samples. DNA extraction and sequencing from two different locations in the same faecal sample gave similar results and showed sample homogeneity.</p>","PeriodicalId":9234,"journal":{"name":"BMC Research Notes","volume":"17 1","pages":"340"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11568685/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Research Notes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-024-06999-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The influence of different faecal collection methods on metagenomic analyses remains under discussion, and there is no general agreement on which collection method is preferable for gut microbiome research. We compared faecal samples collected in tubes without preservatives with those containing 10 mL of 96% ethanol for gut microbiome research when the timeframe from defecation to freezing at - 80 °C was up to 24 h. We aimed to compare the collection methods on faeces from participants with inflammatory and non-inflammatory gastrointestinal disorders and healthy controls to investigate the most suitable method when considering data yield, human fraction of sequencing reads, and ease of use. We also examined the faecal sample homogeneity.
Results: Faeces collected in tubes without preservatives resulted in more sequencing reads compared to faeces collected in tubes with 96% ethanol and were also easier to handle. The human fraction of total reads in faeces collected in ethanol from participants with inflammatory bowel disease was higher than all other samples. DNA extraction and sequencing from two different locations in the same faecal sample gave similar results and showed sample homogeneity.
BMC Research NotesBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (all)
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
363
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍:
BMC Research Notes publishes scientifically valid research outputs that cannot be considered as full research or methodology articles. We support the research community across all scientific and clinical disciplines by providing an open access forum for sharing data and useful information; this includes, but is not limited to, updates to previous work, additions to established methods, short publications, null results, research proposals and data management plans.