Cited by 273Gut microbiota and healthInfant Nutrition and HealthMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology

16S rRNA gene-based profiling of the human infant gut microbiota is strongly influenced by sample processing and PCR primer choice

Open access
Walker, Alan W., Martin, Jennifer C., Scott, Paul, Parkhill, Julian, Flint, Harry J., Scott, Karen P.·2015·Microbiome

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Characterisation of the bacterial composition of the gut microbiota is increasingly carried out with a view to establish the role of different bacterial species in causation or prevention of disease. It is thus essential that the methods used to determine the microbial composition are robust. Here, several widely used molecular techniques were compared to establish the optimal methods to assess the bacterial composition in faecal samples from babies, before weaning. RESULTS: The bacterial community profile detected in the faeces of infants is highly dependent on the methodology used. Bifidobacteria were the most abundant bacteria detected at 6 weeks in faeces from two initially breast-fed babies using fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH), in agreement with data from previous culture-based studies. Using the 16S rRNA gene sequencing approach, however, we found that the detection of bifidobacteria in particular crucially depended on the optimisation of the DNA extraction method, and the choice of primers used to amplify the V1-V3 regions of 16S rRNA genes prior to subsequent sequence analysis. Bifidobacteria were only well represented among amplified 16S rRNA gene sequences when mechanical disruption (bead-beating) procedures for DNA extraction were employed together with optimised "universal" PCR primers. These primers incorporate degenerate bases at positions where mismatches to bifidobacteria and other bacterial taxa occur. The use of a DNA extraction kit with no bead-beating step resulted in a complete absence of bifidobacteria in the sequence data, even when using the optimised primers. CONCLUSIONS: This work emphasises the importance of sample processing methodology to downstream sequencing results and illustrates the value of employing multiple approaches for determining microbiota composition.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s40168-015-0087-4

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A modified forward primer was used to ensure adequate amplification, including taxa previously underrepresented using conventional primers.

    “To ensure adequate amplification, including taxa that were previously underrepresented using conventional primers that target the V1-2 region such as Bifidobacteria [29], a modified forward primer was used”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Walker, A. W., Martin, J. C., Scott, P., Parkhill, J., Flint, H. J., & Scott, K. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • Wellcome Sanger Institute (GB)
Corresponding author
Scott, Karen P.
Venue
Microbiome
Published
2015-06-22
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
26-26
ISSN
2049-2618 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1679625911
Cited by
273
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 3
FWCI
13.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Microbiome (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (grant number 098051, 098051)
  • Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division
  • Scottish Government
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Infant Nutrition and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
Keywords
infant gut microbiota, 16S rRNA gene sequencing, primer design, DNA extraction methods, bead beating, Bifidobacterium, breastfeeding, fecal samples, method comparison

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review