2014
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-62703-712-9_15
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Metagenomics Using Next-Generation Sequencing

Abstract: Traditionally, microbial genome sequencing has been restricted to the small number of species that can be grown in pure culture. The progressive development of culture-independent methods over the last 15 years now allows researchers to sequence microbial communities directly from environmental samples. This approach is commonly referred to as "metagenomics" or "community genomics". However, the term metagenomics is applied liberally in the literature to describe any culture-independent analysis of microbial c… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
43
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
3

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 86 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 113 publications
0
43
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Curiously, the DGGE-detected phylotypes J (EB2 sample) and A (EB1 sample) could not be detected by pyrosequencing (Figure 5) despite the same pool of DNA having been used for both techniques (Figure 2). Like other PCR-based approaches (von Wintzingerode et al, 1997; Speksnijder et al, 2001), the two culture-independent molecular techniques employed in this study are prone to bias, artifacts, pitfalls, and have limitations, whose discussion and explanation falls beyond the scope of this study (for details on these issues see Mühling et al, 2008; Green et al, 2010; Berry et al, 2011; Scholz et al, 2012; Bragg and Tyson, 2014). It is possible that by removing singletons and small sequences from the pyrosequencing data (Table 2), we may have missed sequences phylogenetically close to the unique DGGE-derived sequences.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Curiously, the DGGE-detected phylotypes J (EB2 sample) and A (EB1 sample) could not be detected by pyrosequencing (Figure 5) despite the same pool of DNA having been used for both techniques (Figure 2). Like other PCR-based approaches (von Wintzingerode et al, 1997; Speksnijder et al, 2001), the two culture-independent molecular techniques employed in this study are prone to bias, artifacts, pitfalls, and have limitations, whose discussion and explanation falls beyond the scope of this study (for details on these issues see Mühling et al, 2008; Green et al, 2010; Berry et al, 2011; Scholz et al, 2012; Bragg and Tyson, 2014). It is possible that by removing singletons and small sequences from the pyrosequencing data (Table 2), we may have missed sequences phylogenetically close to the unique DGGE-derived sequences.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…It can be run in a parallel cloud computing environment to obtain extremely high performance on large data sets. Unbiased NGS approaches enable comprehensive pathogen detection in the clinical microbiology laboratory [63] and have numerous applications for public health surveillance, outbreak investigation, and the diagnosis of infectious diseases. Sequence-based ultra rapid pathogen identification (SURPI™) [53] is a computational pipeline for pathogen identification from complex metagenomic NGS data generated.…”
Section: Open-source Toolsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, while computationally challenging, successful implementation of this approach may provide a more accurate reflection of population dynamics at a given site. A more detailed overview of metagenomics analysis is given in Bragg and Tyson (Bragg and Tyson 2014). These data can provide much better identification at the species and, possibly, even at the strain level compared to the amplicon-based approach due to increased sequence information for each microbe.…”
Section: The Omics Evolutionmentioning
confidence: 99%