BackgroundMetagenomics is the study of microbial communities by sequencing of genetic material directly from environmental or clinical samples. The genes present in the metagenomes are quantified by annotating and counting the generated DNA fragments. Identification of differentially abundant genes between metagenomes can provide important information about differences in community structure, diversity and biological function. Metagenomic data is however high-dimensional, contain high levels of biological and technical noise and have typically few biological replicates. The statistical analysis is therefore challenging and many approaches have been suggested to date.ResultsIn this article we perform a comprehensive evaluation of 14 methods for identification of differentially abundant genes between metagenomes. The methods are compared based on the power to detect differentially abundant genes and their ability to correctly estimate the type I error rate and the false discovery rate. We show that sample size, effect size, and gene abundance greatly affect the performance of all methods. Several of the methods also show non-optimal model assumptions and biased false discovery rate estimates, which can result in too large numbers of false positives. We also demonstrate that the performance of several of the methods differs substantially between metagenomic data sequenced by different technologies.ConclusionsTwo methods, primarily designed for the analysis of RNA sequencing data (edgeR and DESeq2) together with a generalized linear model based on an overdispersed Poisson distribution were found to have best overall performance. The results presented in this study may serve as a guide for selecting suitable statistical methods for identification of differentially abundant genes in metagenomes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12864-016-2386-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The impact of the microenvironment on innate lymphoid cell (ILC)-mediated immunity in humans remains largely unknown. Here we used full-length Smart-seq2 single-cell RNA-sequencing to unravel tissue-specific transcriptional profiles and heterogeneity of CD127+ ILCs across four human tissues. Correlation analysis identified gene modules characterizing the migratory properties of tonsil and blood ILCs, and signatures of tissue-residency, activation and modified metabolism in colon and lung ILCs. Trajectory analysis revealed potential differentiation pathways from circulating and tissue-resident naïve ILCs to a spectrum of mature ILC subsets. In the lung we identified both CRTH2+ and CRTH2− ILC2 with lung-specific signatures, which could be recapitulated by alarmin-exposure of circulating ILC2. Finally, we describe unique TCR-V(D)J-rearrangement patterns of blood ILC1-like cells, revealing a subset of potentially immature ILCs with TCR-δ rearrangement. Our study provides a useful resource for in-depth understanding of ILC-mediated immunity in humans, with implications for disease.

BackgroundIn shotgun metagenomics, microbial communities are studied through direct sequencing of DNA without any prior cultivation. By comparing gene abundances estimated from the generated sequencing reads, functional differences between the communities can be identified. However, gene abundance data is affected by high levels of systematic variability, which can greatly reduce the statistical power and introduce false positives. Normalization, which is the process where systematic variability is identified and removed, is therefore a vital part of the data analysis. A wide range of normalization methods for high-dimensional count data has been proposed but their performance on the analysis of shotgun metagenomic data has not been evaluated.ResultsHere, we present a systematic evaluation of nine normalization methods for gene abundance data. The methods were evaluated through resampling of three comprehensive datasets, creating a realistic setting that preserved the unique characteristics of metagenomic data. Performance was measured in terms of the methods ability to identify differentially abundant genes (DAGs), correctly calculate unbiased p-values and control the false discovery rate (FDR). Our results showed that the choice of normalization method has a large impact on the end results. When the DAGs were asymmetrically present between the experimental conditions, many normalization methods had a reduced true positive rate (TPR) and a high false positive rate (FPR). The methods trimmed mean of M-values (TMM) and relative log expression (RLE) had the overall highest performance and are therefore recommended for the analysis of gene abundance data. For larger sample sizes, CSS also showed satisfactory performance.ConclusionsThis study emphasizes the importance of selecting a suitable normalization methods in the analysis of data from shotgun metagenomics. Our results also demonstrate that improper methods may result in unacceptably high levels of false positives, which in turn may lead to incorrect or obfuscated biological interpretation.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12864-018-4637-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Biology is increasingly dependent on large-scale analysis, such as proteomics, creating a requirement for efficient bioinformatics. Bioinformatic predictions of biological functions rely upon correctly annotated database sequences, and the presence of inaccurately annotated or otherwise poorly described sequences introduces noise and bias to biological analyses. Accurate annotations are, for example, pivotal for correct identification of polypeptide fragments. However, standards for how sequence databases are organized and presented are currently insufficient. Here, we propose five strategies to address fundamental issues in the annotation of sequence databases: (i) to clearly separate experimentally verified and unverified sequence entries; (ii) to enable a system for tracing the origins of annotations; (iii) to separate entries with high-quality, informative annotation from less useful ones; (iv) to integrate automated quality-control software whenever such tools exist; and (v) to facilitate postsubmission editing of annotations and metadata associated with sequences. We believe that implementation of these strategies, for example as requirements for publication of database papers, would enable biology to better take advantage of large-scale data.

No abstract