Article Text

Download PDFPDF

P588 A multi-site comparative study to understand sources of variability in studies of the vaginal microbiota
Free
  1. Jennifer Balkus1,
  2. Sean Proll1,
  3. Johanna Holm2,
  4. Sujatha Srinivasan3,
  5. Darrell Dinwiddie4,
  6. Liam Van Der Pol5,
  7. Noah Hoffman1,
  8. Elliot Lefkowitz5,
  9. James Hughes1,
  10. Barbara Van Der Pol5,
  11. Cosette Wheeler4,
  12. Anna Wald1,
  13. Jeanne Marrazzo5,
  14. Jacques Ravel2,
  15. David Fredricks3
  1. 1University of Washington, Seattle, USA
  2. 2University of Maryland, Institute for Genome Sciences, Baltimore, USA
  3. 3Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Seattle, USA
  4. 4University of New Mexico – Albuquerque, Albuquerque, USA
  5. 5University of Alabama at Birmingham, Medicine/Infectious Diseases, Birmingham, USA

Abstract

Background The most common approach for describing bacterial communities is amplification of a taxonomically informative gene (e.g. 16S rRNA) followed by amplicon sequencing and taxonomic assignment of the sequences. Variability can arise from numerous steps in this process including DNA extraction, PCR amplification, and bioinformatics approaches for taxonomic assignment. To better understand sources of variation in describing the vaginal microbiota, we conducted a comparative study across four laboratories.

Methods A central laboratory prepared and distributed a specimen set including vaginal swabs from four women with a range of Nugent scores (in vivo samples), three mock communities of vaginal bacteria, and positive and negative controls. For in vivo and mock communities, each laboratory was also provided specimens that underwent DNA extraction by the central laboratory. Laboratories followed their standard laboratory and bioinformatics processes. Results were analyzed by a central group blinded to laboratory.

Results For mock and in vivo communities dominated by a mix of Lactobacillus species, all laboratories successfully detected each of the taxa in the sample and reported similar relative abundances. For mock communities containing BV-associated taxa, most laboratories detected all taxa; however, some taxa, including Prevotella amnii and Atopobium vaginae, were not detected by all laboratories and there was more variation in relative abundances across the laboratories (P. amnii relative abundance range=<1%–17%; mock community proportion of colony forming units=11%). Variations were observed between the relative abundances within laboratories compared to samples that underwent DNA extraction by the central laboratory, highlighting impact of DNA extraction method.

Conclusion Despite differences in methods, in most cases laboratories would have come to the same conclusion regarding dominant taxa in a sample, especially for Lactobacillus-dominant samples. Samples with more diverse communities had more variation in reports of minority taxa and relative abundances. Standardized use of mock communities may improve reproducibility across vaginal microbiota studies.

Disclosure No significant relationships.

  • microbiome

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.