Common methods for fecal sample storage in field studies yield consistent signatures of individual identity in microbiome sequencing data
Elizabeth A Archie,
Luis B Barreiro,
Zachary P Johnson,
Mark E Wilson,
Michael L Yuan,
Laura E. Grieneisen,
Posted 04 Feb 2016
bioRxiv DOI: 10.1101/038844 (published DOI: 10.1038/srep31519)
Posted 04 Feb 2016
Field studies of wild vertebrates are frequently associated with extensive collections of banked fecal samples, which are often collected from known individuals and sometimes also sampled longitudinally across time. Such collections represent unique resources for understanding ecological, behavioral, and phylogenetic effects on the gut microbiome, especially for species of particular conservation concern. However, we do not understand whether sample storage methods confound the ability to investigate interindividual variation in gut microbiome profiles. This uncertainty arises in part because comparisons across storage methods to date generally include only a few (≤5) individuals, or analyze pooled samples. Here, we used n=52 samples from 13 rhesus macaque individuals to compare immediate freezing, the gold standard of preservation, to three methods commonly used in vertebrate field studies: storage in ethanol, lyophilization following ethanol storage, and storage in RNAlater. We found that the signature of individual identity consistently outweighed storage effects: alpha diversity and beta diversity measures were significantly correlated across methods, and while samples often clustered by donor, they never clustered by storage method. Provided that all analyzed samples are stored the same way, banked fecal samples therefore appear highly suitable for investigating variation in gut microbiota. Our results open the door to a much-expanded perspective on variation in the gut microbiome across species and ecological contexts.
- Downloaded 33,711 times
- Download rankings, all-time:
- Site-wide: 34 out of 89,651
- In genomics: 7 out of 5,704
- Year to date:
- Site-wide: 58,083 out of 89,651
- Since beginning of last month:
- Site-wide: 72,198 out of 89,651
Downloads over time
Distribution of downloads per paper, site-wide
- 18 Dec 2019: We're pleased to announce PanLingua, a new tool that enables you to search for machine-translated bioRxiv preprints using more than 100 different languages.
- 21 May 2019: PLOS Biology has published a community page about Rxivist.org and its design.
- 10 May 2019: The paper analyzing the Rxivist dataset has been published at eLife.
- 1 Mar 2019: We now have summary statistics about bioRxiv downloads and submissions.
- 8 Feb 2019: Data from Altmetric is now available on the Rxivist details page for every preprint. Look for the "donut" under the download metrics.
- 30 Jan 2019: preLights has featured the Rxivist preprint and written about our findings.
- 22 Jan 2019: Nature just published an article about Rxivist and our data.
- 13 Jan 2019: The Rxivist preprint is live!