SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Applications Forums > Metagenomics



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Barcoding 16S amplicons for Illumina Seq alfredman1 General 8 10-22-2013 04:37 AM
best primers for 16S amplicon sequencing dca 454 Pyrosequencing 9 09-11-2012 09:49 AM
454 Titanium 16S HMP primers? cliffbeall 454 Pyrosequencing 9 05-11-2012 05:52 AM
16S metagenome sequencing directions(F/R) jiaco 454 Pyrosequencing 12 01-26-2012 01:39 PM
Normalization of 16S PCR products cmazzoni Metagenomics 0 07-21-2011 05:17 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-07-2011, 06:28 AM   #1
dph
Junior Member
 
Location: on earth

Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2
Default best 16s region to amplify with NGS ?

Does someone have an idea of the best 16s gene region to amplify with NGS in order to assess microbial (bacterial) diversity in environmental samples ?
cheers
dph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 09:44 AM   #2
dph
Junior Member
 
Location: on earth

Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2
Default

no reply ??? no idea ?
dph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 05:03 AM   #3
themerlin
Member
 
Location: Flagstaff, AZ

Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 51
Default

There has actually been a fair bit of work done on this in the literature. I'd look at some papers out of Rob Knight's group.
themerlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 06:29 AM   #4
cliffbeall
Senior Member
 
Location: Ohio

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 144
Default

One thing you might want to think about is doing more than one region. We looked at V1-2 and V4 on oral bacteria (pre-titanium) and found that V4 significantly undercounted the Bacteroidetes phylum, despite that the primers match Bacteroidetes perfectly well.

The Human Microbiome Project followed a similar tack, with their V1-3 and V3-5 primers. Our current strategy is to use their sequences, on the thought they will become a standard (at least for a few months until the technology changes again).
cliffbeall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 08:58 AM   #5
Jean
Member
 
Location: Canada

Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 37
Default

What environment? What are you trying to find or distinguish? What platform will you be sequencing with? The "best" region is the one that will work for the questions you want to answer. If, for example, you are trying to distinguish two species then one variable region might have more distinguishing power than another.
Jean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 03:32 AM   #6
jrvalverde
Junior Member
 
Location: Madrid, Spain

Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4
Default Rtfp

Read the papers.

As already pointed out, it depends on what you want.

Certain regions work better than others to distinguish among different species, but cannot resolve among others. The best way to know is to find out studies about your target community and see whether they did work. For instance, v6 will not distinguish E coli from Salmonella, which is serious if you want to analyze health data, but may be irrelevant for soil data.

A second factor is the technology: if you are going to generate long reads then your target may be different from the one you'd select for short reads. Again, the literature is the fastest resource.

Another option is to download VAMPS datasets and mine them: you can see which regions distinguish among which species, the lengths they cover, etc... That is more laborious and difficult.

And in case of doubt, the worst choice, but one that often works reasonably well, is to simply repeat blindly what others have done on similar experiments without trying to understand why they did. You risk making huge mistakes and that a careful reviewer may turn your work down, but you also get chances no one will notice your carelessness.
jrvalverde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2012, 04:26 PM   #7
capsicum
Member
 
Location: Earth

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cliffbeall View Post
One thing you might want to think about is doing more than one region. We looked at V1-2 and V4 on oral bacteria (pre-titanium) and found that V4 significantly undercounted the Bacteroidetes phylum, despite that the primers match Bacteroidetes perfectly well.

The Human Microbiome Project followed a similar tack, with their V1-3 and V3-5 primers. Our current strategy is to use their sequences, on the thought they will become a standard (at least for a few months until the technology changes again).
I think they're using V4 now for Illumina sequencing.
capsicum is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
16s, amplification, diversity, metagenomic

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 06:41 PM.


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