Preprint Article Version 1 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Comparison of Illumina Versus Nanopore 16S rRNA Gene Sequencing of the Human Nasal Microbiota

Version 1 : Received: 29 August 2020 / Approved: 30 August 2020 / Online: 30 August 2020 (16:04:50 CEST)

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

Heikema, A.P.; Horst-Kreft, D.; Boers, S.A.; Jansen, R.; Hiltemann, S.D.; de Koning, W.; Kraaij, R.; de Ridder, M.A.J.; van Houten, C.B.; Bont, L.J.; Stubbs, A.P.; Hays, J.P. Comparison of Illumina versus Nanopore 16S rRNA Gene Sequencing of the Human Nasal Microbiota. Genes 2020, 11, 1105. Heikema, A.P.; Horst-Kreft, D.; Boers, S.A.; Jansen, R.; Hiltemann, S.D.; de Koning, W.; Kraaij, R.; de Ridder, M.A.J.; van Houten, C.B.; Bont, L.J.; Stubbs, A.P.; Hays, J.P. Comparison of Illumina versus Nanopore 16S rRNA Gene Sequencing of the Human Nasal Microbiota. Genes 2020, 11, 1105.

Journal reference: Genes 2020, 11, 1105
DOI: 10.3390/genes11091105

Abstract

Illumina and nanopore sequencing technologies are powerful tools that can be used to determine the bacterial composition of complex microbial communities. In this study, we compared nasal microbiota results at genus level using both Illumina and nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing. We also monitored the progression of nanopore sequencing in the accurate identification of species, using pure, single species cultures, and evaluated the performance of the nanopore EPI2ME 16S data analysis pipeline. Fifty-nine nasal swabs were sequenced using Illumina MiSeq and Oxford Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing technologies. In addition, five pure cultures of relevant bacterial species were sequenced with the nanopore sequencing technology. The Illumina MiSeq sequence data were processed using bioinformatics modules present in the Mothur software package. Albacore and Guppy base calling, a workflow in nanopore EPI2ME and an in house developed bioinformatics script were used to analyze the nanopore data. At genus level, similar bacterial diversity profiles were found, and five main and established genera were identified by both platforms. However, probably due to mismatching of the nanopore sequence primers, the nanopore sequencing platform identified Corynebacterium in much lower abundance compared to Illumina sequencing. Further, when using default settings in the EPI2ME workflow, almost all sequence reads that seem to belong to the bacterial genus Dolosigranulum and a considerable part to the genus Haemophilus were only identified at family level. Nanopore sequencing of single species cultures demonstrated at least 88% accurate identification of the species at genus and species level for 4/5 strains tested, including improvements in accurate sequence read identification when the basecaller Guppy and Albacore, and when flowcell versions R9.4 and R9.2 were compared.

Subject Areas

Nasal microbiota; Illumina sequencing; nanopore sequencing; 16S rRNA gene; Bacterial species; Corynebacterium

Comments (0)

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 0
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.