Taxonomic classification and abundance estimation using 16S and WGS-A comparison using controlled reference samples

Khachatryan, L.; Leeuw, R.H. de; Kraakman, M.E.M.; Pappas, N.; Raa, M. te; Mei, H.L.; Knijff, P. de; Laros, J.F.J.

doi:doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2020.102257

The assessment of microbiome biodiversity is the most common application of metagenomics. While 16S sequencing remains standard procedure for taxonomic profiling of metagenomic data, a growing number of studies have clearly demonstrated biases associated with this method. By using Whole Genome Shotgun sequencing (WGS) metagenomics, most of the known restrictions associated with 16S data are alleviated. However, due to the computationally intensive data analyses and higher sequencing costs, WGS based metagenomics remains a less popular option. Selecting the experiment type that provides a comprehensive, yet manageable amount of information is a challenge encountered in many metagenomics studies. In this work, we created a series of artificial bacterial mixes, each with a different distribution of skin-associated microbial species. These mixes were used to estimate the resolution of two different metagenomic experiments - 16S and WGS - and to evaluate several different bioinformatics...Show moreThe assessment of microbiome biodiversity is the most common application of metagenomics. While 16S sequencing remains standard procedure for taxonomic profiling of metagenomic data, a growing number of studies have clearly demonstrated biases associated with this method. By using Whole Genome Shotgun sequencing (WGS) metagenomics, most of the known restrictions associated with 16S data are alleviated. However, due to the computationally intensive data analyses and higher sequencing costs, WGS based metagenomics remains a less popular option. Selecting the experiment type that provides a comprehensive, yet manageable amount of information is a challenge encountered in many metagenomics studies. In this work, we created a series of artificial bacterial mixes, each with a different distribution of skin-associated microbial species. These mixes were used to estimate the resolution of two different metagenomic experiments - 16S and WGS - and to evaluate several different bioinformatics approaches for taxonomic read classification. In all test cases, WGS approaches provide much more accurate results, in terms of taxa prediction and abundance estimation, in comparison to those of 16S. Furthermore, we demonstrate that a 16S dataset, analysed using different state of the art techniques and reference databases, can produce widely different results. In light of the fact that most forensic metagenomic analysis are still performed using 16S data, our results are especially important.Show less

Leiden University Scholarly Publications

View statistics

Documents

In Collections

Taxonomic classification and abundance estimation using 16S and WGS-A comparison using controlled reference samples