Ghost-tree: creating hybrid-gene phylogenetic trees for diversity analyses.

BackgroundFungi play critical roles in many ecosystems, cause serious diseases in plants and animals, and pose significant threats to human health and structural integrity problems in built environments. While most fungal diversity remains unknown, the development of PCR primers for the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) combined with next-generation sequencing has substantially improved our ability to profile fungal microbial diversity. Although the high sequence variability in the ITS region facilitates more accurate species identification, it also makes multiple sequence alignment and phylogenetic analysis unreliable across evolutionarily distant fungi because the sequences are hard to align accurately. To address this issue, we created ghost-tree, a bioinformatics tool that integrates sequence data from two genetic markers into a single phylogenetic tree that can be used for diversity analyses. Our approach starts with a "foundation" phylogeny based on one genetic marker whose sequences can be aligned across organisms spanning divergent taxonomic groups (e.g., fungal families). Then, "extension" phylogenies are built for more closely related organisms (e.g., fungal species or strains) using a second more rapidly evolving genetic marker. These smaller phylogenies are then grafted onto the foundation tree by mapping taxonomic names such that each corresponding foundation-tree tip would branch into its new "extension tree" child.ResultsWe applied ghost-tree to graft fungal extension phylogenies derived from ITS sequences onto a foundation phylogeny derived from fungal 18S sequences. Our analysis of simulated and real fungal ITS data sets found that phylogenetic distances between fungal communities computed using ghost-tree phylogenies explained significantly more variance than non-phylogenetic distances. The phylogenetic metrics also improved our ability to distinguish small differences (effect sizes) between microbial communities, though results were similar to non-phylogenetic methods for larger effect sizes.ConclusionsThe Silva/UNITE-based ghost tree presented here can be easily integrated into existing fungal analysis pipelines to enhance the resolution of fungal community differences and improve understanding of these communities in built environments. The ghost-tree software package can also be used to develop phylogenetic trees for other marker gene sets that afford different taxonomic resolution, or for bridging genome trees with amplicon trees.Availabilityghost-tree is pip-installable. All source code, documentation, and test code are available under the BSD license at https://github.com/JTFouquier/ghost-tree

mockrobiota: a Public Resource for Microbiome Bioinformatics Benchmarking.

Mock communities are an important tool for validating, optimizing, and comparing bioinformatics methods for microbial community analysis. We present mockrobiota, a public resource for sharing, validating, and documenting mock community data resources, available at http://caporaso-lab.github.io/mockrobiota/. The materials contained in mockrobiota include data set and sample metadata, expected composition data (taxonomy or gene annotations or reference sequences for mock community members), and links to raw data (e.g., raw sequence data) for each mock community data set. mockrobiota does not supply physical sample materials directly, but the data set metadata included for each mock community indicate whether physical sample materials are available. At the time of this writing, mockrobiota contains 11 mock community data sets with known species compositions, including bacterial, archaeal, and eukaryotic mock communities, analyzed by high-throughput marker gene sequencing. IMPORTANCE The availability of standard and public mock community data will facilitate ongoing method optimizations, comparisons across studies that share source data, and greater transparency and access and eliminate redundancy. These are also valuable resources for bioinformatics teaching and training. This dynamic resource is intended to expand and evolve to meet the changing needs of the omics community

Impact of Different Exercise Modalities on the Human Gut Microbiome

In this study we examined changes to the human gut microbiome resulting from an eight-week intervention of either cardiorespiratory exercise (CRE) or resistance training exercise (RTE). Twenty-eight subjects (21 F; aged 18–26) were recruited for our CRE study and 28 subjects (17 F; aged 18–33) were recruited for our RTE study. Fecal samples for gut microbiome profiling were collected twice weekly during the pre-intervention phase (three weeks), intervention phase (eight weeks), and post-intervention phase (three weeks). Pre/post VO2max, three repetition maximum (3RM), and body composition measurements were conducted. Heart rate ranges for CRE were determined by subjects’ initial VO2max test. RTE weight ranges were established by subjects’ initial 3RM testing for squat, bench press, and bent-over row. Gut microbiota were profiled using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Microbiome sequence data were analyzed with QIIME 2. CRE resulted in initial changes to the gut microbiome which were not sustained through or after the intervention period, while RTE resulted in no detectable changes to the gut microbiota. For both CRE and RTE, we observe some evidence that the baseline microbiome composition may be predictive of exercise gains. This work suggests that the human gut microbiome can change in response to a new exercise program, but the type of exercise likely impacts whether a change occurs. The changes observed in our CRE intervention resemble a disturbance to the microbiome, where an initial shift is observed followed by a return to the baseline state. More work is needed to understand how sustained changes to the microbiome occur, resulting in differences that have been reported in cross sectional studies of athletes and non-athletes

Impact of Different Exercise Modalities on the Human Gut Microbiome

In this study we examined changes to the human gut microbiome resulting from an eight-week intervention of either cardiorespiratory exercise (CRE) or resistance training exercise (RTE). Twenty-eight subjects (21 F; aged 18–26) were recruited for our CRE study and 28 subjects (17 F; aged 18–33) were recruited for our RTE study. Fecal samples for gut microbiome profiling were collected twice weekly during the pre-intervention phase (three weeks), intervention phase (eight weeks), and post-intervention phase (three weeks). Pre/post VO2max, three repetition maximum (3RM), and body composition measurements were conducted. Heart rate ranges for CRE were determined by subjects’ initial VO2max test. RTE weight ranges were established by subjects’ initial 3RM testing for squat, bench press, and bent-over row. Gut microbiota were profiled using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Microbiome sequence data were analyzed with QIIME 2. CRE resulted in initial changes to the gut microbiome which were not sustained through or after the intervention period, while RTE resulted in no detectable changes to the gut microbiota. For both CRE and RTE, we observe some evidence that the baseline microbiome composition may be predictive of exercise gains. This work suggests that the human gut microbiome can change in response to a new exercise program, but the type of exercise likely impacts whether a change occurs. The changes observed in our CRE intervention resemble a disturbance to the microbiome, where an initial shift is observed followed by a return to the baseline state. More work is needed to understand how sustained changes to the microbiome occur, resulting in differences that have been reported in cross sectional studies of athletes and non-athletes

mockrobiota: a Public Resource for Microbiome Bioinformatics Benchmarking.

Mock communities are an important tool for validating, optimizing, and comparing bioinformatics methods for microbial community analysis. We present mockrobiota, a public resource for sharing, validating, and documenting mock community data resources, available at http://caporaso-lab.github.io/mockrobiota/. The materials contained in mockrobiota include data set and sample metadata, expected composition data (taxonomy or gene annotations or reference sequences for mock community members), and links to raw data (e.g., raw sequence data) for each mock community data set. mockrobiota does not supply physical sample materials directly, but the data set metadata included for each mock community indicate whether physical sample materials are available. At the time of this writing, mockrobiota contains 11 mock community data sets with known species compositions, including bacterial, archaeal, and eukaryotic mock communities, analyzed by high-throughput marker gene sequencing. IMPORTANCE The availability of standard and public mock community data will facilitate ongoing method optimizations, comparisons across studies that share source data, and greater transparency and access and eliminate redundancy. These are also valuable resources for bioinformatics teaching and training. This dynamic resource is intended to expand and evolve to meet the changing needs of the omics community

mockrobiota: a public resource for microbiome bioinformatics benchmarking

Mock communities are an important tool for validating, optimizing, and comparing bioinformatics methods for microbial community analysis. We present mockrobiota, a public resource for sharing, validating, and documenting mock community data resources, available at http://caporaso-lab.github.io/mockrobiota/ . The materials contained in mockrobiota include data set and sample metadata, expected composition data (taxonomy or gene annotations or reference sequences for mock community members), and links to raw data (e.g., raw sequence data) for each mock community data set. mockrobiota does not supply physical sample materials directly, but the data set metadata included for each mock community indicate whether physical sample materials are available. At the time of this writing, mockrobiota contains 11 mock community data sets with known species compositions, including bacterial, archaeal, and eukaryotic mock communities, analyzed by high-throughput marker gene sequencing. IMPORTANCE The availability of standard and public mock community data will facilitate ongoing method optimizations, comparisons across studies that share source data, and greater transparency and access and eliminate redundancy. These are also valuable resources for bioinformatics teaching and training. This dynamic resource is intended to expand and evolve to meet the changing needs of the omics community.ISSN:2379-507

Additional file 1: Figure S1. of ghost-tree: creating hybrid-gene phylogenetic trees for diversity analyses

Principal Coordinates comparing unsimulated (real) samples based on (a) unweighted UniFrac distances where trees are computed using ghost-tree, (b) weighted UniFrac distances where trees are computed using ghost-tree, (c) unweighted UniFrac distances where trees are computed using ghost-tree, 0-branch length-foundation, (d) weighted UniFrac distances where trees are computed using ghost-tree, 0-branch-length foundation, (e) unweighted UniFrac distances where trees are computed using ghost-tree, 0-branch-length extensions, (f) weighted UniFrac distances where trees are computed using ghost-tree, 0-branch-length extensions. Blue points are simulated and real human saliva samples, and red points are simulated and real restroom surface samples. Plots were made using EMPeror software [25]. (PDF 522 kb

QIIME 2: Reproducible, interactive, scalable, and extensible microbiome data science

Bolyen E, Rideout JR, Dillon MR, et al. QIIME 2: Reproducible, interactive, scalable, and extensible microbiome data science. PeerJ. 2018

Author Correction: Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2

In the version of this article initially published, some reference citations were incorrect. The three references to Jupyter Notebooks should have cited Kluyver et al. instead of Gonzalez et al. The reference to Qiita should have cited Gonzalez et al. instead of Schloss et al. The reference to mothur should have cited Schloss et al. instead of McMurdie & Holmes. The reference to phyloseq should have cited McMurdie & Holmes instead of Huber et al. The reference to Bioconductor should have cited Huber et al. instead of Franzosa et al. And the reference to the biobakery suite should have cited Franzosa et al. instead of Kluyver et al. The errors have been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.</p