Comparison of three amplicon sequencing approaches to determine staphylococcal populations on human skin.
Journal
BMC microbiology
ISSN: 1471-2180
Titre abrégé: BMC Microbiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100966981
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 07 2021
28 07 2021
Historique:
received:
25
03
2021
accepted:
21
07
2021
entrez:
29
7
2021
pubmed:
30
7
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Staphylococci are important members of the human skin microbiome. Many staphylococcal species and strains are commensals of the healthy skin microbiota, while few play essential roles in skin diseases such as atopic dermatitis. To study the involvement of staphylococci in health and disease, it is essential to determine staphylococcal populations in skin samples beyond the genus and species level. Culture-independent approaches such as amplicon next-generation sequencing (NGS) are time- and cost-effective options. However, their suitability depends on the power of resolution. Here we compare three amplicon NGS schemes that rely on different targets within the genes tuf and rpsK, designated tuf1, tuf2 and rpsK schemes. The schemes were tested on mock communities and on human skin samples. To obtain skin samples and build mock communities, skin swab samples of healthy volunteers were taken. In total, 254 staphylococcal strains were isolated and identified to the species level by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. A subset of ten strains belonging to different staphylococcal species were genome-sequenced. Two mock communities with nine and eighteen strains, respectively, as well as eight randomly selected skin samples were analysed with the three amplicon NGS methods. Our results imply that all three methods are suitable for species-level determination of staphylococcal populations. However, the novel tuf2-NGS scheme was superior in resolution power. It unambiguously allowed identification of Staphylococcus saccharolyticus and distinguish phylogenetically distinct clusters of Staphylococcus epidermidis. Powerful amplicon NGS approaches for the detection and relative quantification of staphylococci in human samples exist that can resolve populations to the species and, to some extent, to the subspecies level. Our study highlights strengths, weaknesses and pitfalls of three currently available amplicon NGS approaches to determine staphylococcal populations. Applied to the analysis of healthy and diseased skin, these approaches can be useful to attribute host-beneficial and -detrimental roles to skin-resident staphylococcal species and subspecies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Staphylococci are important members of the human skin microbiome. Many staphylococcal species and strains are commensals of the healthy skin microbiota, while few play essential roles in skin diseases such as atopic dermatitis. To study the involvement of staphylococci in health and disease, it is essential to determine staphylococcal populations in skin samples beyond the genus and species level. Culture-independent approaches such as amplicon next-generation sequencing (NGS) are time- and cost-effective options. However, their suitability depends on the power of resolution.
RESULTS
Here we compare three amplicon NGS schemes that rely on different targets within the genes tuf and rpsK, designated tuf1, tuf2 and rpsK schemes. The schemes were tested on mock communities and on human skin samples. To obtain skin samples and build mock communities, skin swab samples of healthy volunteers were taken. In total, 254 staphylococcal strains were isolated and identified to the species level by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. A subset of ten strains belonging to different staphylococcal species were genome-sequenced. Two mock communities with nine and eighteen strains, respectively, as well as eight randomly selected skin samples were analysed with the three amplicon NGS methods. Our results imply that all three methods are suitable for species-level determination of staphylococcal populations. However, the novel tuf2-NGS scheme was superior in resolution power. It unambiguously allowed identification of Staphylococcus saccharolyticus and distinguish phylogenetically distinct clusters of Staphylococcus epidermidis.
CONCLUSIONS
Powerful amplicon NGS approaches for the detection and relative quantification of staphylococci in human samples exist that can resolve populations to the species and, to some extent, to the subspecies level. Our study highlights strengths, weaknesses and pitfalls of three currently available amplicon NGS approaches to determine staphylococcal populations. Applied to the analysis of healthy and diseased skin, these approaches can be useful to attribute host-beneficial and -detrimental roles to skin-resident staphylococcal species and subspecies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34320945
doi: 10.1186/s12866-021-02284-1
pii: 10.1186/s12866-021-02284-1
pmc: PMC8320028
doi:
Substances chimiques
DNA, Bacterial
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
221Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Genome Biol Evol. 2015 Apr 16;7(5):1313-28
pubmed: 25888688
Microbiome. 2016 Dec 2;4(1):63
pubmed: 27912796
Appl Microbiol. 1975 Sep;30(3):381-5
pubmed: 810086
J Clin Microbiol. 1997 Dec;35(12):3116-21
pubmed: 9399505
Sci Rep. 2019 Dec 27;9(1):19834
pubmed: 31882601
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012 Mar;56(3):1539-47
pubmed: 22155816
Microorganisms. 2020 Jun 14;8(6):
pubmed: 32545893
Nat Med. 2009 Dec;15(12):1377-82
pubmed: 19966777
Front Microbiol. 2019 Sep 27;10:2212
pubmed: 31611856
J Clin Microbiol. 2002 Apr;40(4):1333-8
pubmed: 11923353
J Clin Microbiol. 2000 Dec;38(12):4351-5
pubmed: 11101563
Mol Microbiol. 1997 Dec;26(5):1005-11
pubmed: 9426137
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2018 Mar;16(3):143-155
pubmed: 29332945
Sci Rep. 2018 Aug 24;8(1):12751
pubmed: 30143677
Science. 2009 May 29;324(5931):1190-2
pubmed: 19478181
Bioinformatics. 2014 Aug 1;30(15):2114-20
pubmed: 24695404
BMC Microbiol. 2020 Nov 26;20(1):362
pubmed: 33243146
Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2020 Oct 22;10:570261
pubmed: 33194808
Bioinformatics. 2012 Oct 15;28(20):2678-9
pubmed: 22914218
Nature. 2015 Apr 2;520(7545):104-8
pubmed: 25539086
J Clin Microbiol. 2008 Mar;46(3):1019-25
pubmed: 18174295
Nature. 2018 Jan 24;553(7689):427-436
pubmed: 29364286
Nat Commun. 2018 Nov 28;9(1):5034
pubmed: 30487573
Science. 2019 Jan 18;363(6424):227-228
pubmed: 30655428
Microorganisms. 2020 Dec 12;8(12):
pubmed: 33322779
Microorganisms. 2020 Jul 23;8(8):
pubmed: 32718033
FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2007 May;60(2):341-50
pubmed: 17343679
J Cell Mol Med. 2019 Sep;23(9):5949-5955
pubmed: 31278859
Genome Biol. 2014;15(11):524
pubmed: 25410596
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2000 Apr;105(4):814-9
pubmed: 10756234
J Clin Microbiol. 1996 Apr;34(4):818-23
pubmed: 8815090
J Invest Dermatol. 2016 May;136(5):947-956
pubmed: 26829039
J Comput Biol. 2012 May;19(5):455-77
pubmed: 22506599
Genome Biol. 2012 Jul 25;13(7):R64
pubmed: 22830599
J Bacteriol. 2007 Mar;189(6):2540-52
pubmed: 17220222
J Clin Microbiol. 2001 Oct;39(10):3693-5
pubmed: 11574593
Immunity. 2015 Nov 17;43(5):1011-21
pubmed: 26588783
Nature. 1988 May 19;333(6170):276-8
pubmed: 2835685
J Clin Microbiol. 2001 Dec;39(12):4296-301
pubmed: 11724835
J Invest Dermatol. 2020 Aug;140(8):1619-1628.e2
pubmed: 31981578
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020 May 21;64(6):
pubmed: 32253213
Nature. 1990 May 3;345(6270):63-5
pubmed: 1691827
Trends Microbiol. 2019 Jun;27(6):497-507
pubmed: 30846311
Cell. 2020 Feb 6;180(3):454-470.e18
pubmed: 32004459
Sci Adv. 2018 Feb 28;4(2):eaao4502
pubmed: 29507878
PLoS Pathog. 2021 Feb 5;17(2):e1009304
pubmed: 33544760
J Clin Microbiol. 2010 Jan;48(1):192-201
pubmed: 19889901
Sci Transl Med. 2017 Feb 22;9(378):
pubmed: 28228596
J Clin Microbiol. 2001 Jul;39(7):2541-7
pubmed: 11427566
J Mol Diagn. 2010 Jan;12(1):109-17
pubmed: 19948821
Nat Biotechnol. 2019 Aug;37(8):852-857
pubmed: 31341288
Nature. 2014 Oct 2;514(7520):59-64
pubmed: 25279917
Front Microbiol. 2019 Aug 27;10:1971
pubmed: 31507574