Journal List > J Bacteriol Virol > v.41(1) > 1033988

Bae: Recent Methodological Approaches to Human Microbiome

Abstract

Human body is one of the most complex and diverse microbial ecosystem in which various microbes are living together with their hosts. Starting with Louis Pasteur's postulation that human health is dependent on gut-resident microbiota, microbes in the gastrointestinal tract have been studied using culture-based techniques. Cultivation has the great advantage that isolates can be recovered and used to further studies for their ability to utilize different substrates and other physiological properties. However, cultivation method is very labor-intensive and can not reveal representative microbial diversity of human intestinal tract. Only small fraction of the microbes residing in human intestine can be cultured and majority of intestinal microbes (approximately 60~70% of intestinal microbes) can not be come into view with currently available cultivation techniques. To avoid reliance on cultivation, many culture-independent molecular methods have been developed to analysis environmental microbes and our understanding of complex microbial communities has been greatly increased by molecular methods in recent decades. These culture-independent methods are mainly based on the use of microbial DNA sequences. Among prokaryotic DNAs targeted by molecular analysis, approximately 1.5 kb long 16S ribosomal DNA gene that encodes part of the small subunit (SSU) of ribosome is often used for analysis of microbial diversity. Molecular techniques introduced in microbial ecology have made it possible to study the composition of intestinal flora in a culture-independent way based on the detection of SSU rDNA.

REFERENCES

1). Whitman WB., Coleman DC., Wiebe WJ. Prokaryotes: the unseen majority. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998. 95:6578–83.
crossref
2). Amann RI., Binder BJ., Olson RJ., Chisholm SW., Devereux R., Stahl DA. Combination of 16S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes with flow cytometry for analyzing mixed microbial populations. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1990. 56:1919–25.
crossref
3). Muyzer G., de Waal EC., Uitterlinden AG. Profiling of complex microbial populations by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of polymerase chain reaction-amplified genes coding for 16S rRNA. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1993. 59:695–700.
crossref
4). Favier CF., de Vos WM., Akkermans AD. Development of bacterial and bifidobacterial communities in feces of newborn babies. Anaerobe. 2003. 9:219–29.
crossref
5). Namsolleck P., Thiel R., Lawson P., Holmstrom K., Rajilic M., Vaughan EE, et al. Molecular methods for the analysis of gut microbiota. Microb Ecol Health Dis. 2004. 16:71–85.
crossref
6). Franks AH., Harmsen HJ., Raangs GC., Jansen GJ., Schut F., Welling GW. Variations of bacterial populations in human feces measured by fluorescent in situ hybridization with group-specific 16S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998. 64:3336–45.
crossref
7). Lay C., Sutren M., Rochet V., Saunier K., Dore J., Rigottier-Gois L. Design and validation of 16S rRNA probes to enumerate members of the Clostridium leptum subgroup in human faecal microbiota. Environ Microbiol. 2005. 7:933–46.
8). Zoetendal EG., Ben-Amor K., Harmsen HJ., Schut F., Akkermans AD., de Vos WM. Quantification of uncultured Ruminococcus obeum-like bacteria in human fecal samples by fluorescent in situ hybridization and flow cytometry using 16S rRNA-targeted probes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002. 68:4225–32.
9). Schena M., Shalon D., Davis RW., Brown PO. Quantitative monitoring of gene expression patterns with a complementary DNA microarray. Science. 1995. 270:467–70.
crossref
10). Bodrossy L., Sessitsch A. Oligonucleotide microarrays in microbial diagnostics. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2004. 7:245–54.
crossref
11). Zhou J. Microarrays for bacterial detection and microbial community analysis. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2003. 6:288–94.
crossref
12). Bae JW., Park YH. Homogeneous versus heterogeneous probes for microbial ecological microarrays. Trends Biotechnol. 2006. 24:318–23.
crossref
13). Wilson KH., Wilson WJ., Radosevich JL., DeSantis TZ., Viswanathan VS., Kuczmarski TA, et al. High-density micro-array of small-subunit ribosomal DNA probes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002. 68:2535–41.
crossref
14). Lazarevic V., Whiteson K., Huse S., Hernandez D., Farinelli L., Osterås M, et al. Metagenomic study of the oral microbiota by Illumina high-throughput sequencing. J Microbiol Methods. 2009. 79:266–71.
crossref
15). Akhras MS., Thiyagarajan S., Villablanca AC., Davis RW., Nyren P., Pourmand N. PathogenMip assay: a multiplex pathogen detection assay. PLoS ONE. 2007. 2:e223.
crossref
16). Claesson MJ., O'Sullivan O., Wang Q., Nikkila J., Marchesi JR., Smidt H, et al. Comparative analysis of pyrosequencing and a phylogenetic microarray for exploring microbial community structures in the human distal intestine. PLoS ONE. 2009. 4:e6669.
crossref
17). Quince C., Lanzen A., Curtis TP., Davenport RJ., Hall N., Head IM, et al. Accurate determination of microbial diversity from 454 pyrosequencing data. Nat Methods. 2009. 6:639–41.
crossref
18). Gomez-Alvarez V., Teal TK., Schmidt TM. Systematic artifacts in metagenomes from complex microbial communities. ISME J. 2009. 3:1314–7.
crossref
19). Qin J., Li R., Raes J., Arumugam M., Burgdorf KS., Manichanh C, et al. A human gut microbial gene catalogue established by metagenomic sequencing. Nature. 2010. 464:59–65.
crossref
20). Qiu X., Wu L., Huang H., McDonel PE., Palumbo AV., Tiedje JM, et al. Evaluation of PCR-generated chimeras, mutations, and heteroduplexes with 16S rRNA gene-based cloning. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001. 67:880–7.
crossref
21). Polz MF., Cavanaugh CM. Bias in template-to-product ratios in multitemplate PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998. 64:3724–30.
crossref
22). Huber T., Faulkner G., Hugenholtz P. Bellerophon: a program to detect chimeric sequences in multiple sequence alignments. Bioinformatics. 2004. 20:2317–9.
crossref
23). Jeong H., Barbe V., Lee CH., Vallenet D., Yu DS., Choi SH, et al. Genome sequences of Escherichia coli B strains REL606 and BL21(DE3). J Mol Biol. 2009. 394:644–52.
24). Reyes A., Haynes M., Hanson N., Angly FE., Heath AC., Rohwer F, et al. Viruses in the faecal microbiota of monozygotic twins and their mothers. Nature. 2010. 466:334–8.
crossref

Table 1.
Notable features of molecular methods for studying the intestinal microbiota
Methods Advantage Limitation
Cultivation Capable of isolation of microorganisms, physiological and biochemical test of isolates Lots of time and effort required Deficient reproducibility Difficult to isolate uncultivated microorganisms
DGGE Monitoring of microbial community change Comparison analysis of microbial community in various samples Inaccurate quantitative analysis due to PCR biases Requirement of sequencing to identify each band. Detectable only for dominant microorganisms
FISH Microbial detection and quantification in situ Low specificity of designed probe Difficult to detect all of targeted microorganisms
Flow cytometry Detection and separation of targeted microorganisms Obtain ability of uncultured microbial genomes The same shortcomings as FISH Incorrect cytometry
Q-PCR Quantitative analysis of specific microorganisms Very low-throughput Need of each different primer set and independent experiment for targeted microorganisms
Microarray Very high-throughput Analysis of functional gene as well as 16S rRNA gene Difficult to design specific probe High cost Low sensitivity than Q-PCR with environmental sample
NGS Low cost and short time to obtain massive sequence data Short read length PCR-induced artifacts and bias Requiring high-performance computer systems and bioinformatics tools
TOOLS
Similar articles