海洋原核浮游生物 SAG 和 MAG 大集合的基因组代表性和嵌合性。

IF 13.8 1区 生物学 Q1 MICROBIOLOGY Microbiome Pub Date : 2024-07-15 DOI:10.1186/s40168-024-01848-3
Tianyi Chang, Gregory S Gavelis, Julia M Brown, Ramunas Stepanauskas
{"title":"海洋原核浮游生物 SAG 和 MAG 大集合的基因组代表性和嵌合性。","authors":"Tianyi Chang, Gregory S Gavelis, Julia M Brown, Ramunas Stepanauskas","doi":"10.1186/s40168-024-01848-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Single amplified genomes (SAGs) and metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) are the predominant sources of information about the coding potential of uncultured microbial lineages, but their strengths and limitations remain poorly understood. Here, we performed a direct comparison of two previously published collections of thousands of SAGs and MAGs obtained from the same, global environment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that SAGs were less prone to chimerism and more accurately reflected the relative abundance and the pangenome content of microbial lineages inhabiting the epipelagic of the tropical and subtropical ocean, as compared to MAGs. SAGs were also better suited to link genome information with taxa discovered through 16S rRNA amplicon analyses. Meanwhile, MAGs had the advantage of more readily recovering genomes of rare lineages.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our analyses revealed the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two most commonly used genome recovery approaches in environmental microbiology. These considerations, as well as the need for better tools for genome quality assessment, should be taken into account when designing studies and interpreting data that involve SAGs or MAGs. Video Abstract.</p>","PeriodicalId":18447,"journal":{"name":"Microbiome","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11247762/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Genomic representativeness and chimerism in large collections of SAGs and MAGs of marine prokaryoplankton.\",\"authors\":\"Tianyi Chang, Gregory S Gavelis, Julia M Brown, Ramunas Stepanauskas\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40168-024-01848-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Single amplified genomes (SAGs) and metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) are the predominant sources of information about the coding potential of uncultured microbial lineages, but their strengths and limitations remain poorly understood. Here, we performed a direct comparison of two previously published collections of thousands of SAGs and MAGs obtained from the same, global environment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that SAGs were less prone to chimerism and more accurately reflected the relative abundance and the pangenome content of microbial lineages inhabiting the epipelagic of the tropical and subtropical ocean, as compared to MAGs. SAGs were also better suited to link genome information with taxa discovered through 16S rRNA amplicon analyses. Meanwhile, MAGs had the advantage of more readily recovering genomes of rare lineages.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our analyses revealed the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two most commonly used genome recovery approaches in environmental microbiology. These considerations, as well as the need for better tools for genome quality assessment, should be taken into account when designing studies and interpreting data that involve SAGs or MAGs. Video Abstract.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18447,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Microbiome\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":13.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11247762/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Microbiome\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-024-01848-3\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Microbiome","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-024-01848-3","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:单个扩增基因组(SAGs)和元基因组组装基因组(MAGs)是有关未培养微生物种系编码潜力的主要信息来源,但人们对它们的优势和局限性仍然知之甚少。在这里,我们直接比较了之前发表的两个收集自同一全球环境的数千个 SAG 和 MAG:结果:我们发现,与 MAGs 相比,SAGs 不易出现嵌合现象,而且能更准确地反映栖息在热带和亚热带海洋上层的微生物系的相对丰度和庞基因组含量。SAGs 也更适合将基因组信息与通过 16S rRNA 扩增子分析发现的类群联系起来。同时,MAGs 的优势在于更容易恢复稀有品系的基因组:我们的分析揭示了环境微生物学中最常用的两种基因组恢复方法的相对优缺点。在设计研究和解释涉及 SAG 或 MAG 的数据时,应考虑到这些因素以及对更好的基因组质量评估工具的需求。视频摘要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Genomic representativeness and chimerism in large collections of SAGs and MAGs of marine prokaryoplankton.

Background: Single amplified genomes (SAGs) and metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) are the predominant sources of information about the coding potential of uncultured microbial lineages, but their strengths and limitations remain poorly understood. Here, we performed a direct comparison of two previously published collections of thousands of SAGs and MAGs obtained from the same, global environment.

Results: We found that SAGs were less prone to chimerism and more accurately reflected the relative abundance and the pangenome content of microbial lineages inhabiting the epipelagic of the tropical and subtropical ocean, as compared to MAGs. SAGs were also better suited to link genome information with taxa discovered through 16S rRNA amplicon analyses. Meanwhile, MAGs had the advantage of more readily recovering genomes of rare lineages.

Conclusions: Our analyses revealed the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two most commonly used genome recovery approaches in environmental microbiology. These considerations, as well as the need for better tools for genome quality assessment, should be taken into account when designing studies and interpreting data that involve SAGs or MAGs. Video Abstract.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Microbiome
Microbiome MICROBIOLOGY-
CiteScore
21.90
自引率
2.60%
发文量
198
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊介绍: Microbiome is a journal that focuses on studies of microbiomes in humans, animals, plants, and the environment. It covers both natural and manipulated microbiomes, such as those in agriculture. The journal is interested in research that uses meta-omics approaches or novel bioinformatics tools and emphasizes the community/host interaction and structure-function relationship within the microbiome. Studies that go beyond descriptive omics surveys and include experimental or theoretical approaches will be considered for publication. The journal also encourages research that establishes cause and effect relationships and supports proposed microbiome functions. However, studies of individual microbial isolates/species without exploring their impact on the host or the complex microbiome structures and functions will not be considered for publication. Microbiome is indexed in BIOSIS, Current Contents, DOAJ, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, PubMed Central, and Science Citations Index Expanded.
期刊最新文献
Intestinal commensal bacteria promote Bactrocera dorsalis larval development through the vitamin B6 synthesis pathway. MAGqual: a stand-alone pipeline to assess the quality of metagenome-assembled genomes. Nepali oral microbiomes reflect a gradient of lifestyles from traditional to industrialized. The gut microbiome in patients with Cushing's disease affects depression- and anxiety-like behavior in mice. Quality traits drive the enrichment of Massilia in the rhizosphere to improve soybean oil content.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1