Comparative analysis of metagenomic and 16S rDNA sequencing in gut microbiota of healthy elderly.
10.3760/cma.j.cn112150-20211222-01177
- Author:
Si Qi ZHUANG
1
;
Yi Xin MAO
2
;
Fu Chang DENG
2
;
Yue Yun LUO
2
;
Wan Ying SHI
2
;
Xia LI
2
;
Ya Qiang CAO
3
;
Ji Cheng XU
4
;
Song TANG
5
Author Information
1. Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou 221004, China China CDC Key Laboratory of Environment and Population Health, National Institute of Environmental Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing 100021, China.
2. China CDC Key Laboratory of Environment and Population Health, National Institute of Environmental Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing 100021, China.
3. Center for Global Health, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 211166, China.
4. Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou 221004, China.
5. China CDC Key Laboratory of Environment and Population Health, National Institute of Environmental Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing 100021, China Center for Global Health, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 211166, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Male;
Female;
Humans;
Aged;
Gastrointestinal Microbiome/genetics*;
DNA, Ribosomal/genetics*;
Feces;
Sequence Analysis, DNA;
Metagenomics;
RNA, Ribosomal, 16S/genetics*
- From:
Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine
2022;56(11):1618-1624
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: To explore the differences in subsequent analysis between metagenomic and 16Sr DNA sequencing in compositionally characterizing gut microbiota of healthy elderly. Methods: By using a panel study design, five monthly repeated measurements were performed among 76 healthy older people in Jinan City, Shandong Province. Their fecal samples were collected, and genomic DNA was extracted and analyzed through metagenomic and 16Sr DNA sequencing to compare the composition and diversity of gut microbiota. The correlation between species abundance and α diversity was analyzed by Pearson correlation analysis, and the correlation between species abundance and β diversity was determined by Procrustes analysis. Results: The age of 76 participants was (65.07±2.75), and the body mass index was (25.03±2.40) kg/m2. There were 38 males and 38 females. A total of 345 fecal samples were obtained from five monthly repeated measurements . Compared with 16S rDNA sequencing, metagenomic sequencing showed more annotated species at each level. The difference in the number of two sequencing species increased with the decrease of the level. Although there were significant differences in species richness between the two sequencing methods. Their species richness was highly correlated at both phylum (r=0.88, P<0.001) and genus (r=0.77, P<0.001) levels. Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes were the common dominant species. Gut microbiota diversity analysis further showed that there was a significantly positive correlation between α diversity (r=0.70, P<0.001) and β diversities (M2=0.84, P<0.05) in the two groups. Conclusion: The annotation efficiency of metagenomic sequencing is much higher than that of 16S rDNA sequencing. The two sequencing methods are consistent in phylum abundance as well as α diversity.
