A comparison of methods used to unveil the genetic and metabolic pool in the built environment

Abstract Background A majority of indoor residential microbes originate from humans, pets, and outdoor air and are not adapted to the built environment (BE). Consequently, a large portion of the microbes identified by DNA-based methods are either dead or metabolically inactive. Although many excepti...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Cinta Gomez-Silvan, Marcus H. Y. Leung, Katherine A. Grue, Randeep Kaur, Xinzhao Tong, Patrick K. H. Lee, Gary L. Andersen
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2018-04-01
Series:Microbiome
Subjects:
DNA
RNA
Air
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40168-018-0453-0
id doaj-7bc324c507044204b5e7e8335c08b697
record_format Article
spelling doaj-7bc324c507044204b5e7e8335c08b6972020-11-24T22:43:58ZengBMCMicrobiome2049-26182018-04-016111610.1186/s40168-018-0453-0A comparison of methods used to unveil the genetic and metabolic pool in the built environmentCinta Gomez-Silvan0Marcus H. Y. Leung1Katherine A. Grue2Randeep Kaur3Xinzhao Tong4Patrick K. H. Lee5Gary L. Andersen6Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of CaliforniaSchool of Energy and Environment, City University of Hong KongDepartment of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of CaliforniaEnvironmental Genomics and Systems Biology Division, Lawrence Berkeley National LaboratorySchool of Energy and Environment, City University of Hong KongSchool of Energy and Environment, City University of Hong KongDepartment of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of CaliforniaAbstract Background A majority of indoor residential microbes originate from humans, pets, and outdoor air and are not adapted to the built environment (BE). Consequently, a large portion of the microbes identified by DNA-based methods are either dead or metabolically inactive. Although many exceptions have been noted, the ribosomal RNA fraction of the sample is more likely to represent either viable or metabolically active cells. We examined methodological variations in sample processing using a defined, mock BE microbial community to better understand the scope of technique-based vs. biological-based differences in both ribosomal transcript (rRNA) and gene (DNA) sequence community analysis. Based on in vitro tests, a protocol was adopted for the analysis of the genetic and metabolic pool (DNA vs. rRNA) of air and surface microbiomes within a residential setting. Results We observed differences in DNA/RNA co-extraction efficiency for individual microbes, but overall, a greater recovery of rRNA using FastPrep (> 50%). Samples stored with various preservation methods at − 80°C experienced a rapid decline in nucleic acid recovery starting within the first week, although post-extraction rRNA had no significant degradation when treated with RNAStable. We recommend that co-extraction samples be processed as quickly as possible after collection. The in vivo analysis revealed significant differences in the two components (genetic and metabolic pool) in terms of taxonomy, community structure, and microbial association networks. Rare taxa present in the genetic pool showed higher metabolic potential (RNA:DNA ratio), whereas commonly detected taxa of outdoor origins based on DNA sequencing, especially taxa of the Sphingomonadales order, were present in lower relative abundances in the viable community. Conclusions Although methodological variations in sample preparations are high, large differences between the DNA and RNA fractions of the total microbial community demonstrate that direct examination of rRNA isolated from a residential BE microbiome has the potential to identify the more likely viable or active portion of the microbial community. In an environment that has primarily dead and metabolically inactive cells, we suggest that the rRNA fraction of BE samples is capable of providing a more ecologically relevant insight into the factors that drive indoor microbial community dynamics.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40168-018-0453-0DNARNAIndoor microbiomeSurfaceAirSample storage
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Cinta Gomez-Silvan
Marcus H. Y. Leung
Katherine A. Grue
Randeep Kaur
Xinzhao Tong
Patrick K. H. Lee
Gary L. Andersen
spellingShingle Cinta Gomez-Silvan
Marcus H. Y. Leung
Katherine A. Grue
Randeep Kaur
Xinzhao Tong
Patrick K. H. Lee
Gary L. Andersen
A comparison of methods used to unveil the genetic and metabolic pool in the built environment
Microbiome
DNA
RNA
Indoor microbiome
Surface
Air
Sample storage
author_facet Cinta Gomez-Silvan
Marcus H. Y. Leung
Katherine A. Grue
Randeep Kaur
Xinzhao Tong
Patrick K. H. Lee
Gary L. Andersen
author_sort Cinta Gomez-Silvan
title A comparison of methods used to unveil the genetic and metabolic pool in the built environment
title_short A comparison of methods used to unveil the genetic and metabolic pool in the built environment
title_full A comparison of methods used to unveil the genetic and metabolic pool in the built environment
title_fullStr A comparison of methods used to unveil the genetic and metabolic pool in the built environment
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of methods used to unveil the genetic and metabolic pool in the built environment
title_sort comparison of methods used to unveil the genetic and metabolic pool in the built environment
publisher BMC
series Microbiome
issn 2049-2618
publishDate 2018-04-01
description Abstract Background A majority of indoor residential microbes originate from humans, pets, and outdoor air and are not adapted to the built environment (BE). Consequently, a large portion of the microbes identified by DNA-based methods are either dead or metabolically inactive. Although many exceptions have been noted, the ribosomal RNA fraction of the sample is more likely to represent either viable or metabolically active cells. We examined methodological variations in sample processing using a defined, mock BE microbial community to better understand the scope of technique-based vs. biological-based differences in both ribosomal transcript (rRNA) and gene (DNA) sequence community analysis. Based on in vitro tests, a protocol was adopted for the analysis of the genetic and metabolic pool (DNA vs. rRNA) of air and surface microbiomes within a residential setting. Results We observed differences in DNA/RNA co-extraction efficiency for individual microbes, but overall, a greater recovery of rRNA using FastPrep (> 50%). Samples stored with various preservation methods at − 80°C experienced a rapid decline in nucleic acid recovery starting within the first week, although post-extraction rRNA had no significant degradation when treated with RNAStable. We recommend that co-extraction samples be processed as quickly as possible after collection. The in vivo analysis revealed significant differences in the two components (genetic and metabolic pool) in terms of taxonomy, community structure, and microbial association networks. Rare taxa present in the genetic pool showed higher metabolic potential (RNA:DNA ratio), whereas commonly detected taxa of outdoor origins based on DNA sequencing, especially taxa of the Sphingomonadales order, were present in lower relative abundances in the viable community. Conclusions Although methodological variations in sample preparations are high, large differences between the DNA and RNA fractions of the total microbial community demonstrate that direct examination of rRNA isolated from a residential BE microbiome has the potential to identify the more likely viable or active portion of the microbial community. In an environment that has primarily dead and metabolically inactive cells, we suggest that the rRNA fraction of BE samples is capable of providing a more ecologically relevant insight into the factors that drive indoor microbial community dynamics.
topic DNA
RNA
Indoor microbiome
Surface
Air
Sample storage
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40168-018-0453-0
work_keys_str_mv AT cintagomezsilvan acomparisonofmethodsusedtounveilthegeneticandmetabolicpoolinthebuiltenvironment
AT marcushyleung acomparisonofmethodsusedtounveilthegeneticandmetabolicpoolinthebuiltenvironment
AT katherineagrue acomparisonofmethodsusedtounveilthegeneticandmetabolicpoolinthebuiltenvironment
AT randeepkaur acomparisonofmethodsusedtounveilthegeneticandmetabolicpoolinthebuiltenvironment
AT xinzhaotong acomparisonofmethodsusedtounveilthegeneticandmetabolicpoolinthebuiltenvironment
AT patrickkhlee acomparisonofmethodsusedtounveilthegeneticandmetabolicpoolinthebuiltenvironment
AT garylandersen acomparisonofmethodsusedtounveilthegeneticandmetabolicpoolinthebuiltenvironment
AT cintagomezsilvan comparisonofmethodsusedtounveilthegeneticandmetabolicpoolinthebuiltenvironment
AT marcushyleung comparisonofmethodsusedtounveilthegeneticandmetabolicpoolinthebuiltenvironment
AT katherineagrue comparisonofmethodsusedtounveilthegeneticandmetabolicpoolinthebuiltenvironment
AT randeepkaur comparisonofmethodsusedtounveilthegeneticandmetabolicpoolinthebuiltenvironment
AT xinzhaotong comparisonofmethodsusedtounveilthegeneticandmetabolicpoolinthebuiltenvironment
AT patrickkhlee comparisonofmethodsusedtounveilthegeneticandmetabolicpoolinthebuiltenvironment
AT garylandersen comparisonofmethodsusedtounveilthegeneticandmetabolicpoolinthebuiltenvironment
_version_ 1725693610885644288