Field and laboratory guidelines for reliable bioinformatic and statistical analysis of bacterial shotgun metagenomic data

References

• Cullen CM, Aneja KK, Beyhan S, et al. Emerging priorities for microbiome research. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:136. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conrads G, Abdelbary MMH. Challenges of next-generation sequencing targeting anaerobes. Anaerobe. 2019;58:47–52. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2019.02.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, et al. DADA2: high-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods. 2016;13:581–583. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3869.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Větrovský T, Baldrian P. The variability of the 16S rRNA gene in bacterial genomes and its consequences for bacterial community analyses. PLOS One. 2013;8:e57923. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057923.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zepeda Mendoza ML, Sicheritz-Pontén T, Gilbert MTP. Environmental genes and genomes: understanding the differences and challenges in the approaches and software for their analyses. Brief Bioinform. 2015;16:745–758. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbv001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nayfach S, Pollard KS. Toward accurate and quantitative comparative metagenomics. Cell. 2016;166:1103–1116. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.08.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durazzi F, Sala C, Castellani G, et al. Comparison between 16S rRNA and shotgun sequencing data for the taxonomic characterization of the gut microbiota. Sci Rep. 2021;11:3030. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-82726-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown SM, Chen H, Hao Y, et al. MGS-Fast: metagenomic shotgun data fast annotation using microbial gene catalogs. Gigascience. 2019;8:giz020. doi: 10.1093/gigascience/giz020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sczyrba A, Hofmann P, Belmann P, et al. Critical assessment of metagenome interpretation—a benchmark of metagenomics software. Nat Methods. 2017;14:1063–1071. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.4458.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ye SH, Siddle KJ, Park DJ, et al. Benchmarking metagenomics tools for taxonomic classification. Cell. 2019;178:779–794. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.07.010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han D, Gao P, Li R, et al. Multicenter assessment of microbial community profiling using 16S rRNA gene sequencing and shotgun metagenomic sequencing. J Adv Res. 2020;26:111–121. doi: 10.1016/j.jare.2020.07.010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sala C, Mordhorst H, Grützke J, et al. Metagenomics-based proficiency test of smoked salmon spiked with a mock community. Microorganisms. 2020;8:1861. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8121861.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bharti R, Grimm DG. Current challenges and best-practice protocols for microbiome analysis. Brief Bioinform. 2021;22:178–193. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbz155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quince C, Walker AW, Simpson JT, et al. Shotgun metagenomics, from sampling to analysis. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35:833–844. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3935.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wooley JC, Ye Y. Metagenomics: facts and artifacts, and computational challenges. J Comput Sci Technol. 2009;25:71–81. doi: 10.1007/s11390-010-9306-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang X, Bushman FD, FitzGerald GA. Rhythmicity of the intestinal microbiota is regulated by gender and the host circadian clock. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112:10479–10484. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1501305112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Probandt D, Eickhorst T, Ellrott A, et al. Microbial life on a sand grain: from bulk sediment to single grains. ISME J. 2018;12:623–633. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2017.197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sessitsch A, Weilharter A, Gerzabek MH, et al. Microbial population structures in soil particle size fractions of a long-term fertilizer field experiment. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001;67:4215–4224. doi: 10.1128/AEM.67.9.4215-4224.2001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan W, Sun C, Zheng J, et al. Efficacy of fecal sampling as a gut proxy in the study of chicken gut microbiota. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:2126. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fofanov VY, Furstenau TN, Sanchez D, et al. Guano exposed: impact of aerobic conditions on bat fecal microbiota. Ecol Evol. 2018;8:5563–5574. doi: 10.1002/ece3.4084.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong K, Shaw TI, Oladeinde A, et al. Rapid microbiome changes in freshly deposited cow feces under field conditions. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:500. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00500.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ji BW, Sheth RU, Dixit PD, et al. Quantifying spatiotemporal variability and noise in absolute microbiota abundances using replicate sampling. Nat Methods. 2019;16:731–736. doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0467-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menke S, Meier M, Sommer S. Shifts in the gut microbiome observed in wildlife faecal samples exposed to natural weather conditions: lessons from time-series analyses using next-generation sequencing for application in field studies. Methods Ecol Evol. 2015;6:1080–1087. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12394.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffin TW, Baer JG, Ward JE. Direct comparison of fecal and gut microbiota in the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) discourages fecal sampling as a proxy for resident gut community. Microb Ecol. 2021;81:180–192. doi: 10.1007/s00248-020-01553-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu W-K, Chen C-C, Panyod S, et al. Optimization of fecal sample processing for microbiome study – the journey from bathroom to bench. J Formos Med Assoc. 2019;118:545–555. doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2018.02.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandeputte D, Falony G, Vieira-Silva S, et al. Stool consistency is strongly associated with gut microbiota richness and composition, enterotypes and bacterial growth rates. Gut. 2016;65:57–62. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309618.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tkacz A, Hortala M, Poole PS. Absolute quantitation of microbiota abundance in environmental samples. Microbiome. 2018;6:110. doi: 10.1186/s40168-018-0491-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlberg J, Sun L, Persson Waller K, et al. Microbiota data from low biomass milk samples is markedly affected by laboratory and reagent contamination. PLOS One. 2019;14:e0218257. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karstens L, Asquith M, Caruso V, et al. Community profiling of the urinary microbiota: considerations for low-biomass samples. Nat Rev Urol. 2018;15:735–749. doi: 10.1038/s41585-018-0104-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirai M, Nishi S, Tsuda M, et al. Library construction from subnanogram DNA for pelagic sea water and deep-sea sediments. Microbes Environ. 2017;32:336–343. doi: 10.1264/jsme2.ME17132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemp BM, Winters M, Monroe C, et al. How much DNA is lost? Measuring DNA loss of short-tandem-repeat length fragments targeted by the PowerPlex 16® system using the Qiagen MinElute Purification Kit. Hum Biol. 2014;86:313–329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang J, Ostrander J, Wickenheiser R, et al. Touch DNA in forensic science: the use of laboratory-created eccrine fingerprints to quantify DNA loss. Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2020;2:1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2019.10.004.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gaillard C, Strauss F. Avoiding adsorption of DNA to polypropylene tubes and denaturation of short DNA fragments. Technical Tips Online. 1998;3:63–65. doi: 10.1016/S1366-2120(08)70101-6.
   Google Scholar
• Deiner K, Bik HM, Mächler E, et al. Environmental DNA metabarcoding: transforming how we survey animal and plant communities. Mol Ecol. 2017;26:5872–5895. doi: 10.1111/mec.14350.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salter SJ, Cox MJ, Turek EM, et al. Reagent and laboratory contamination can critically impact sequence-based microbiome analyses. BMC Biol. 2014;12:87. doi: 10.1186/s12915-014-0087-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browne HP, Forster SC, Anonye BO, et al. Culturing of “unculturable” human microbiota reveals novel taxa and extensive sporulation. Nature. 2016;533:543–546. doi: 10.1038/nature17645.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hindson CM, Chevillet JR, Briggs HA, et al. Absolute quantification by droplet digital PCR versus analog real-time PCR. Nat Methods. 2013;10:1003–1005. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2633.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenhofer R, Minich JJ, Marotz C, et al. Contamination in low microbial biomass microbiome studies: issues and recommendations. Trends Microbiol. 2019;27:105–117. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2018.11.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy KM, de Goffau MC, Perez-Muñoz ME, et al. Questioning the fetal microbiome illustrates pitfalls of low-biomass microbial studies. Nature. 2023;613:639–649. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05546-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy K, Hall MW, Lynch MDJ, et al. Evaluating bias of illumina-based bacterial 16S rRNA gene profiles. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2014;80:5717–5722. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01451-14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiebelhut LM, Abboud SS, Gómez Daglio LE, et al. A comparison of DNA extraction methods for high‐throughput DNA analyses. Mol Ecol Resour. 2017;17:721–729. doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.12620.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carøe C, Gopalakrishnan S, Vinner L, et al. Single-tube library preparation for degraded DNA. Methods Ecol Evol. 2018;9:410–419. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12871.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neiman M, Sundling S, Grönberg H, et al. Library preparation and multiplex capture for massive parallel sequencing applications made efficient and easy. PLOS One. 2012;7:e48616. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048616.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoppers A, Apone L, Panchapakesa V, et al. A robust, streamlined, enzyme-based DNA library preparation method amenable to a wide range of DNA inputs. J Biomol Techn. 2019;30:S2.
   Google Scholar
• Solonenko SA, Ignacio-Espinoza JC, Alberti A, et al. Sequencing platform and library preparation choices impact viral metagenomes. BMC Genomics. 2013;14:320. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-14-320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson LR, Sanders JG, McDonald D, et al. A communal catalogue reveals Earth’s multiscale microbial diversity. Nature. 2017;551:457–463. doi: 10.1038/­nature24621.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chao A, Kubota Y, Zelený D, et al. Quantifying sample completeness and comparing diversities among assemblages. Ecol Res. 2020;35:292–314. doi: 10.1111/1440-1703.12102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milanese A, Mende DR, Paoli L, et al. Microbial abundance, activity and population genomic profiling with mOTUs2. Nat Commun. 2019;10:1014. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-08844-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chao A, Jost L. Coverage-based rarefaction and extrapolation: standardizing samples by completeness rather than size. Ecology. 2012;93:2533–2547. doi: 10.1890/11-1952.1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albertsen M, Hugenholtz P, Skarshewski A, et al. Genome sequences of rare, uncultured bacteria obtained by differential coverage binning of multiple metagenomes. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31:533–538. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2579.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marotz CA, Sanders JG, Zuniga C, et al. Improving saliva shotgun metagenomics by chemical host DNA depletion. Microbiome. 2018;6:42. doi: 10.1186/s40168-018-0426-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selway CA, Eisenhofer R, Weyrich LS. Microbiome applications for pathology: challenges of low microbial biomass samples during diagnostic testing. J Pathol Clin Res. 2020;6:97–106. doi: 10.1002/cjp2.151.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hacquard S, Garrido-Oter R, González A, et al. Microbiota and host nutrition across plant and animal kingdoms. Cell Host Microbe. 2015;17:603–616. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2015.04.009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alberdi A, Aizpurua O, Gilbert MTP, et al. Scrutinizing key steps for reliable metabarcoding of environmental samples. Methods Ecol Evol. 2018;9:134–147. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12849.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horz H-P, Scheer S, Huenger F, et al. Selective isolation of bacterial DNA from human clinical specimens. J Microbiol Methods. 2008;72:98–102. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2007.10.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wen Y, Xiao F, Wang C, et al. The impact of different methods of DNA extraction on microbial community measures of BALF samples based on metagenomic data. Am J Transl Res. 2016;8:1412–1425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blekhman R, Goodrich JK, Huang K, et al. Host genetic variation impacts microbiome composition across human body sites. Genome Biol. 2015;16:191. doi: 10.1186/s13059-015-0759-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcos S, Parejo M, Estonba A, et al. Recovering high‐quality host genomes from gut metagenomic data through genotype imputation. Adv Genet. 2022;3:2100065. doi: 10.1002/ggn2.202100065.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nyholm L, Koziol A, Marcos S, et al. Holo-omics: integrated host–microbiota multi-omics for basic and applied biological research. iScience. 2020;23:101414. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2020.101414.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alberdi A, Andersen SB, Limborg MT, et al. Disentangling host–microbiota complexity through hologenomics. Nat Rev Genet. 2022;23:281–297. doi: 10.1038/s41576-021-00421-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knapp M, Hofreiter M. Next generation sequencing of ancient DNA: requirements, strategies and perspectives. Genes. 2010;1:227–243. doi: 10.3390/genes1020227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapp JD, Green RE, Shapiro B. A fast and efficient single-stranded genomic library preparation method optimized for ancient DNA. J Hered. 2021;112:241–249. doi: 10.1093/jhered/esab012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjerre RD, Hugerth LW, Boulund F, et al. Effects of sampling strategy and DNA extraction on human skin microbiome investigations. Sci Rep. 2019;9:17287. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-53599-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitra A, MacIntyre DA, Mahajan V, et al. Comparison of vaginal microbiota sampling techniques: cytobrush versus swab. Sci Rep. 2017;7:9802. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-09844-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ogai K, Nagase S, Mukai K, et al. A comparison of techniques for collecting skin microbiome samples: swabbing versus tape-stripping. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:2362. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02362.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pérez-Losada M, Crandall KA, Freishtat RJ. Two sampling methods yield distinct microbial signatures in the nasopharynges of asthmatic children. Microbiome. 2016;4:25. doi: 10.1186/s40168-016-0170-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prast-Nielsen S, Tobin A-M, Adamzik K, et al. Investigation of the skin microbiome: swabs vs. biopsies. Br J Dermatol. 2019;181:572–579. doi: 10.1111/bjd.17691.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spens J, Evans AR, Halfmaerten D, et al. Comparison of capture and storage methods for aqueous macrobial eDNA using an optimized extraction protocol: advantage of enclosed filter. Methods Ecol Evol. 2017;8:635–645. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12683.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll IM, Ringel-Kulka T, Siddle JP, et al. Characterization of the fecal microbiota using high-throughput sequencing reveals a stable microbial community during storage. PLOS One. 2012;7:e46953. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046953.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo Y, Li S-H, Kuang Y-S, et al. Effect of short-term room temperature storage on the microbial community in infant fecal samples. Sci Rep. 2016;6:26648. doi: 10.1038/srep26648.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hickl O, Heintz-Buschart A, Trautwein-Schult A, et al. Sample preservation and storage significantly impact taxonomic and functional profiles in metaproteomics studies of the human gut microbiome. Microorganisms. 2019;7:367. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms7090367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nel Van Zyl K, Whitelaw AC, Newton-Foot M. The effect of storage conditions on microbial communities in stool. PLOS One. 2020;15:e0227486. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulsen CS. The effect of sample processing on microbiomes using metagenomics characterization; 2019. Available from: https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/the-effect-of-sample-processing-on-microbiomes-using-metagenomics
   Google Scholar
• Fouhy F, Deane J, Rea MC, et al. The effects of freezing on faecal microbiota as determined using MiSeq sequencing and culture-based investigations. PLOS One. 2015;10:e0119355. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adler CJ, Haak W, Donlon D, et al. Survival and recovery of DNA from ancient teeth and bones. J Archaeol Sci. 2011;38:956–964. doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2010.11.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dippenaar A, Ismail N, Grobbelaar M, et al. Optimizing liquefaction and decontamination of sputum for DNA extraction from Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Tuberculosis. 2022;132:102159. doi: 10.1016/j.tube.2021.102159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiehlmann L, Pienkowska K, Hedtfeld S, et al. Impact of sample processing on human airways microbial metagenomes. J Biotechnol. 2017;250:51–55. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2017.01.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tedjo DI, Jonkers DMAE, Savelkoul PH, et al. The effect of sampling and storage on the fecal microbiota composition in healthy and diseased subjects. PLOS One. 2015;10:e0126685. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asangba AE, Donohue ME, Lamb A, et al. Variations in the microbiome due to storage preservatives are not large enough to obscure variations due to factors such as host population, host species, body site, and captivity. Am J Primatol. 2019;81:e23045. doi: 10.1002/ajp.23045.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrd DA, Sinha R, Hoffman KL, et al. Comparison of methods to collect fecal samples for microbiome studies using whole-genome shotgun metagenomic sequencing. mSphere. 2020;5:e00827-19. doi: 10.1128/mSphere.00827-19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menke S, Gillingham MAF, Wilhelm K, et al. Home-made cost effective preservation buffer is a better alternative to commercial preservation methods for microbiome research. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:102. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schnorr SL, Candela M, Rampelli S, et al. Gut microbiome of the Hadza hunter–gatherers. Nat Commun. 2014;5:3654. doi: 10.1038/ncomms4654.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuthbertson L, Rogers GB, Walker AW, et al. Implications of multiple freeze-thawing on respiratory samples for culture-independent analyses. J Cyst Fibros. 2015;14:464–467. doi: 10.1016/j.jcf.2014.10.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corcoll N, Österlund T, Sinclair L, et al. Comparison of four DNA extraction methods for comprehensive assessment of 16S rRNA bacterial diversity in marine biofilms using high-throughput sequencing. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2017;364. doi: 10.1093/femsle/fnx139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costea PI, Zeller G, Sunagawa S, et al. Towards standards for human fecal sample processing in metagenomic studies. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35:1069–1076. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3960.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas CA, Ivey KL, Papanicolas LE, et al. DNA extraction approaches substantially influence the assessment of the human breast milk microbiome. Sci Rep. 2020;10:123. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-55568-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiedorová K, Radvanský M, Němcová E, et al. The impact of DNA extraction methods on stool bacterial and fungal microbiota community recovery. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:821. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00821.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Knudsen BE, Bergmark L, Munk P, et al. Impact of sample type and DNA isolation procedure on genomic inference of microbiome composition. mSystems. 2016;1:e00095-16. doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00095-16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mallott EK, Malhi RS, Amato KR. Assessing the comparability of different DNA extraction and amplification methods in gut microbial community profiling. Access Microbiol. 2019;1:e000060. doi: 10.1099/acmi.0.000060.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shi XJ, Liu G, Zhang M, et al. Membrane-sensitive bacterial DNA extractions and absolute quantitation of recovery efficiencies. Sci Total Environ. 2020;708:135125. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Starke R, Jehmlich N, Alfaro T, et al. Incomplete cell disruption of resistant microbes. Sci Rep. 2019;9:5618. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-42188-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sui H-Y, Weil AA, Nuwagira E, et al. Impact of DNA extraction method on variation in human and built environment microbial community and functional profiles assessed by shotgun metagenomics sequencing. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:953. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00953.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wesolowska-Andersen A, Bahl MI, Carvalho V, et al. Choice of bacterial DNA extraction method from fecal material influences community structure as evaluated by metagenomic analysis. Microbiome. 2014;2:19. doi: 10.1186/2049-2618-2-19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sasada R, Weinstein M, Danko D, et al. Progress towards standardizing metagenomics: applying metagenomic reference material to develop reproducible microbial lysis methods with minimum bias. J Biomol Techn. 2020;31:S30.
   Google Scholar
• Gobbi A, Santini RG, Filippi E, et al. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the impact of the G2 enhancer, bead sizes and lysing tubes on the bacterial community composition during DNA extraction from recalcitrant soil core samples based on community sequencing and qPCR. PLOS One. 2019;14:e0200979. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200979.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo F, Zhang T. Biases during DNA extraction of activated sludge samples revealed by high throughput sequencing. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2013;97:4607–4616. doi: 10.1007/s00253-012-4244-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim MY, Song E-J, Kim SH, et al. Comparison of DNA extraction methods for human gut microbial community profiling. Syst Appl Microbiol. 2018;41:151–157. doi: 10.1016/j.syapm.2017.11.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tourlousse DM, Narita K, Miura T, et al. Validation and standardization of DNA extraction and library construction methods for metagenomics-based human fecal microbiome measurements. Microbiome. 2021;9:95. doi: 10.1186/s40168-021-01048-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas V, Clark J, Doré J. Fecal microbiota analysis: an overview of sample collection methods and sequencing strategies. Future Microbiol. 2015;10:1485–1504. doi: 10.2217/fmb.15.87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang B, Brock M, Arana C, et al. Impact of bead-beating intensity on microbiome recovery in mouse and human stool: optimization of DNA extraction. bioRxiv. 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.06.15.151753.
   Google Scholar
• Salonen A, Nikkilä J, Jalanka-Tuovinen J, et al. Comparative analysis of fecal DNA extraction methods with phylogenetic microarray: effective recovery of bacterial and archaeal DNA using mechanical cell lysis. J Microbiol Methods. 2010;81:127–134. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2010.02.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schrader C, Schielke A, Ellerbroek L, et al. PCR inhibitors – occurrence, properties and removal. J Appl Microbiol. 2012;113:1014–1026. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05384.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson IG. Inhibition and facilitation of nucleic acid amplification. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1997;63:3741–3751. doi: 10.1128/aem.63.10.3741-3751.1997.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu Q, Liu Y, Yi S, et al. A comparison of four methods for PCR inhibitor removal. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2015;16:94–97. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.12.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanaka N, Takahara A, Hagio T, et al. Sequencing artifacts derived from a library preparation method using enzymatic fragmentation. PLOS One. 2020;15:e0227427. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227427.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adey A, Morrison HG, Asan  , et al. Rapid, low-input, low-bias construction of shotgun fragment libraries by high-density in vitro transposition. Genome Biol. 2010;11(12):R119. doi: 10.1186/gb-2010-11-12-r119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gyarmati P, Song Y, Hällman J, et al. Chemical fragmentation for massively parallel sequencing library preparation. J Biotechnol. 2013;168:95–100. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2013.08.020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sambrook J, Russell DW. Fragmentation of DNA by sonication. CSH Protoc. 2006;2006. doi: 10.1101/pdb.prot4538.
   Google Scholar
• Poptsova MS, Il’icheva IA, Nechipurenko DY, et al. Non-random DNA fragmentation in next-generation sequencing. Sci Rep. 2014;4:4532. doi: 10.1038/srep04532.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowers RM, Clum A, Tice H, et al. Impact of library preparation protocols and template quantity on the metagenomic reconstruction of a mock microbial community. BMC Genomics. 2015;16:856. doi: 10.1186/s12864-015-2063-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones MB, Highlander SK, Anderson EL, et al. Library preparation methodology can influence genomic and functional predictions in human microbiome research. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112:14024–14029. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1519288112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulsen CS, Pamp SJ, Ekstrøm CT, et al. Library preparation and sequencing platform introduce bias in metagenomics characterisation of microbial communities. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. 2019;592154. doi: 10.1101/592154.
   Google Scholar
• Podnar J, Deiderick H, Hunicke-Smith S. Next-generation sequencing fragment library construction. Curr Protoc Mol Biol. 2014;107:7.17.1–7.17.16. doi: 10.1002/0471142727.mb0717s107.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Feng X, Cheng H, Portik D, et al. Metagenome assembly of high-fidelity long reads with hifiasm-meta. Nat Methods. 2022;19:671–674. doi: 10.1038/s41592-022-01478-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sereika M, Kirkegaard RH, Karst SM, et al. Oxford Nanopore R10.4 long-read sequencing enables the generation of near-finished bacterial genomes from pure cultures and metagenomes without short-read or reference polishing. Nat Methods. 2022;19:823–826. doi: 10.1038/s41592-022-01539-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browne PD, Nielsen TK, Kot W, et al. GC bias affects genomic and metagenomic reconstructions, underrepresenting GC-poor organisms. Gigascience. 2020;9:giaa008. doi: 10.1093/gigascience/giaa008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratan A, Miller W, Guillory J, et al. Comparison of sequencing platforms for single nucleotide variant calls in a human sample. PLOS One. 2013;8:e55089. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055089.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mak SST, Gopalakrishnan S, Carøe C, et al. Comparative performance of the BGISEQ-500 vs Illumina HiSeq2500 sequencing platforms for palaeogenomic sequencing. Gigascience. 2017;6:1–13. doi: 10.1093/gigascience/gix049.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schirmer M, Ijaz UZ, D'Amore R, et al. Insight into biases and sequencing errors for amplicon sequencing with the Illumina MiSeq platform. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43:e37. doi: 10.1093/nar/gku1341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albright S, Louca S. Trait biases in microbial reference genomes. Sci Data. 2023;10:84. doi: 10.1038/s41597-023-01994-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cattonaro F, Spadotto A, Radovic S, et al. Do you cov me? Effect of coverage reduction on metagenome shotgun sequencing studies. F1000Res. 2018;7:1767. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.16804.4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hillmann B, Al-Ghalith GA, Shields-Cutler RR, et al. Evaluating the information content of shallow shotgun metagenomics. mSystems. 2018;3:e00069-18. doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00069-18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glassing A, Dowd SE, Galandiuk S, et al. Inherent bacterial DNA contamination of extraction and sequencing reagents may affect interpretation of microbiota in low bacterial biomass samples. Gut Pathog. 2016;8:24. doi: 10.1186/s13099-016-0103-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karstens L, Asquith M, Davin S, et al. Controlling for contaminants in low-biomass 16S rRNA gene sequencing experiments. mSystems. 2019;4:e00290-19. doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00290-19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauder AP, Roche AM, Sherrill-Mix S, et al. Comparison of placenta samples with contamination controls does not provide evidence for a distinct placenta microbiota. Microbiome. 2016;4:29. doi: 10.1186/s40168-016-0172-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis NM, Proctor DM, Holmes SP, et al. Simple statistical identification and removal of contaminant sequences in marker-gene and metagenomics data. Microbiome. 2018;6:226. doi: 10.1186/s40168-018-0605-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knights D, Kuczynski J, Charlson ES, et al. Bayesian community-wide culture-independent microbial source tracking. Nat Methods. 2011;8:761–763. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1650.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinha R, Abnet CC, White O, et al. The microbiome quality control project: baseline study design and future directions. Genome Biol. 2015;16:276. doi: 10.1186/s13059-015-0841-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim D, Hofstaedter CE, Zhao C, et al. Optimizing methods and dodging pitfalls in microbiome research. Microbiome. 2017;5:52. doi: 10.1186/s40168-017-0267-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bálint M, Márton O, Schatz M, et al. Proper experimental design requires randomization/balancing of molecular ecology experiments. Ecol Evol. 2018;8:1786–1793. doi: 10.1002/ece3.3687.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurlbert SH. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol Monogr. 1984;54:187–211. doi: 10.2307/1942661.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martí JM. Recentrifuge: robust comparative analysis and contamination removal for metagenomics. PLoS Comput Biol. 2019;15:e1006967. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006967.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Goffau MC, Stephen Charnock-Jones D, Smith GCS, et al. Batch effects account for the main findings of an in utero human intestinal bacterial colonization study. Microbiome. 2021;9:6. doi: 10.1186/s40168-020-00949-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dai Z, Wong SH, Yu J, et al. Batch effects correction for microbiome data with Dirichlet-multinomial regression. Bioinformatics. 2019;35:807–814. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty729.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbons SM, Duvallet C, Alm EJ. Correcting for batch effects in case-control microbiome studies. PLoS Comput Biol. 2018;14:e1006102. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tom JA, Reeder J, Forrest WF, et al. Identifying and mitigating batch effects in whole genome sequencing data. BMC Bioinformatics. 2017;18:351. doi: 10.1186/s12859-017-1756-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chor B, Horn D, Goldman N, et al. Genomic DNA k-mer spectra: models and modalities. Genome Biol. 2009;10:R108. doi: 10.1186/gb-2009-10-10-r108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar