SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Applications Forums > Metagenomics



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
suppression subtractive hybridization and 454 AKroxy 454 Pyrosequencing 3 01-14-2011 11:06 AM
PubMed: A framework for analysis of metagenomic sequencing data. Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 12-02-2010 02:00 AM
PubMed: Orphelia: predicting genes in metagenomic sequencing reads. Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 05-12-2009 05:00 AM
PubMed: Metagenomic signatures of 86 microbial and viral metagenomes. Newsbot! Metagenomics 0 03-24-2009 05:00 AM
PubMed: Metagenomic Pyrosequencing and Microbial Identification. Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 03-07-2009 05:20 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-18-2009, 09:24 PM   #1
ECO
--Site Admin--
 
Location: SF Bay Area, CA, USA

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,358
Default PubMed: Suppression Subtractive Hybridisation for Metagenomic Subsampling

Suppression Subtractive Hybridisation Allows Selective Sampling of Metagenomic Subsets of Interest.
Chew YV, Holmes AJ.

School of Molecular and Microbial Biosciences, University of Sydney, Australia.

Metagenomic studies bypass the requirement of a pure culture for analysis, focusing instead on the genetic information present in a given sample. Metagenomics have been applied to various studies, with objectives ranging from genome reconstruction, gene prospecting and ecology. However, the use of metagenomics in comparative studies has been constrained by sequencing costs and computational limitations. Efforts are underway to improve current sequencing methods and reduce the expense involved. We suggest an alternative approach - pretreatment of the sample of interest to enrich for desired subsets prior to deep sequencing. In this study, we tested the use of suppression subtractive hybridisation (SSH) for in vitro separation of metagenomic samples based on temporal variance. Faecal samples were taken from pigs at different timepoints and extracted DNA was whole genome-amplified using multiple displacement amplification (MDA). A sample collected at 31 days of age was designated the tester while a 24 day sample was denoted the driver. Following hybridisation and subtraction, tester-specific sequences are expected to be enriched in the final sample while driver-specific and common sequences are removed. Using denaturing gel gradient electrophoresis (DGGE), we found that driver-specific bands were completely removed from all final profiles while an average of 70% of common bands were successfully subtracted. Final profiles retained an average of 70% of tester-specific sequences and new sequences contributed an average of 36% of the band mobilities found in the final profiles. Tester-unique sequences were inferred to make up 78% of the final profile after SSH. We expect that using subtractive hybridisation for separation of metagenomic samples into desired subsets will provide a more effective and targeted approach to comparative studies.
ECO is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
metagenomics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO