Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Konkret geht es um den Diabetes-Patienten mit kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen oder Risiken, die Herzinsuffizienz sowie die kardiovaskuläre Primär- und Sekundärprävention. Sind Sie hier schon auf dem neuesten Stand? Unsere Experten beleuchten, wo und warum das bisherige Procedere geändert werden soll und was in der Praxis sinnvoll ist. Holen Sie sich Ihr Update und 2 CME-Punkte beim MMW-Webinar am 24. April von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Digestive Diseases and Sciences
Erschienen in: Digestive Diseases and Sciences 3/2020

31.01.2020 | Review

Tools for Analysis of the Microbiome

verfasst von: Jessica Galloway-Peña, Blake Hanson

Erschienen in: Digestive Diseases and Sciences | Ausgabe 3/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Over the past decade, it has become exceedingly clear that the microbiome is a critical factor in human health and disease and thus should be investigated to develop innovative treatment strategies. The field of metagenomics has come a long way in leveraging the advances of next-generation sequencing technologies resulting in the capability to identify and quantify all microorganisms present in human specimens. However, the field of metagenomics is still in its infancy, specifically in regard to the limitations in computational analysis, statistical assessments, standardization, and validation due to vast variability in the cohorts themselves, experimental design, and bioinformatic workflows. This review summarizes the methods, technologies, computational tools, and model systems for characterizing and studying the microbiome. We also discuss important considerations investigators must make when interrogating the involvement of the microbiome in health and disease in order to establish robust results and mechanistic insights before moving into therapeutic design and intervention.
Literatur
1.
Song EJ, Lee ES, Nam YD. Progress of analytical tools and techniques for human gut microbiome research. J Microbiol. 2018;56:693–705.PubMed
2.
Thursby E, Juge N. Introduction to the human gut microbiota. Biochem J. 2017;474:1823–1836.PubMed
3.
Turnbaugh PJ, Ley RE, Hamady M, Fraser-Liggett CM, Knight R, Gordon JI. The human microbiome project. Nature. 2007;449:804–810.PubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Tringe SG, Rubin EM. Metagenomics: DNA sequencing of environmental samples. Nat Rev Genet. 2005;6:805–814.PubMed
5.
Riesenfeld CS, Schloss PD, Handelsman J. Metagenomics: genomic analysis of microbial communities. Annu Rev Genet. 2004;38:525–552.PubMed
6.
Qin J, Li R, Raes J, et al. A human gut microbial gene catalogue established by metagenomic sequencing. Nature. 2010;464:59–65.PubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Integrative HMPRNC. The integrative human microbiome project: dynamic analysis of microbiome-host omics profiles during periods of human health and disease. Cell Host Microbe. 2014;16:276–289.
8.
Bantock GG. The modern doctrine of bacteriology, or the germ theory of disease. Br Med J. 1997;1899:846–848.
9.
10.
Maruvada P, Leone V, Kaplan LM, Chang EB. The human microbiome and obesity: moving beyond associations. Cell Host Microbe. 2017;22:589–599.PubMed
11.
Jamshidi P, Hasanzadeh S, Tahvildari A, et al. Is there any association between gut microbiota and type 1 diabetes? A systematic review. Gut Pathog. 2019;11:49.PubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Ahmadmehrabi S, Tang WHW. Gut microbiome and its role in cardiovascular diseases. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2017;32:761–766.PubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Scott AJ, Alexander JL, Merrifield CA, et al. International cancer microbiome consortium consensus statement on the role of the human microbiome in carcinogenesis. Gut. 2019;68:1624–1632.PubMed
14.
Gopalakrishnan V, Helmink BA, Spencer CN, Reuben A, Wargo JA. The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy. Cancer Cell. 2018;33:570–580.PubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Shen L, Ji HF. Associations between gut microbiota and Alzheimer’s disease: current evidences and future therapeutic and diagnostic perspectives. J Alzheimers Dis. 2019;68:25–31.PubMed
16.
Rieder R, Wisniewski PJ, Alderman BL, Campbell SC. Microbes and mental health: a review. Brain Behav Immun. 2017;66:9–17.PubMed
17.
Vetrovsky T, Baldrian P. The variability of the 16S rRNA gene in bacterial genomes and its consequences for bacterial community analyses. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e57923.PubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Xue Z, Kable ME, Marco ML. Impact of DNA sequencing and analysis methods on 16S rRNA gene bacterial community analysis of dairy products. mSphere. 2018;3:e00410–e00418.PubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Stackebrandt E, Goebel BM. Taxonomic note: a place for DNA-DNA reassociation and 16S rRNA sequence analysis in the present species definition in bacteriology. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 1994;44:846–849.
20.
Yarza P, Yilmaz P, Pruesse E, et al. Uniting the classification of cultured and uncultured bacteria and archaea using 16S rRNA gene sequences. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2014;12:635–645.PubMed
21.
Johnson JS, Spakowicz DJ, Hong BY, et al. Evaluation of 16S rRNA gene sequencing for species and strain-level microbiome analysis. Nat Commun. 2019;10:5029.PubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Edgar RC. Updating the 97% identity threshold for 16S ribosomal RNA OTUs. Bioinformatics. 2018;34:2371–2375.PubMed
23.
Hamady M, Knight R. Microbial community profiling for human microbiome projects: tools, techniques, and challenges. Genome Res. 2009;19:1141–1152.PubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, Cole JR. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73:5261–5267.PubMedPubMedCentral
25.
McDonald D, Price MN, Goodrich J, et al. An improved Greengenes taxonomy with explicit ranks for ecological and evolutionary analyses of bacteria and archaea. ISME J. 2012;6:610–618.PubMed
26.
Yilmaz P, Parfrey LW, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA and “all-species living tree project (LTP)” taxonomic frameworks. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:D643–D648.PubMed
27.
Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, et al. Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009;75:7537–7541.PubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods. 2010;7:335–336.PubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJ, Holmes SP. DADA2: high-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods. 2016;13:581–583.PubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Walker JN, Hanson BM, Pinkner CL, et al. Insights into the microbiome of breast implants and periprosthetic tissue in breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Sci Rep. 2019;9:10393.PubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Zhou W, Sailani MR, Contrepois K, et al. Longitudinal multi-omics of host-microbe dynamics in prediabetes. Nature. 2019;569:663–671.PubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Callahan BJ, Wong J, Heiner C, et al. High-throughput amplicon sequencing of the full-length 16S rRNA gene with single-nucleotide resolution. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:e103.PubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Quince C, Walker AW, Simpson JT, Loman NJ, Segata N. Shotgun metagenomics, from sampling to analysis. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35:833–844.PubMed
34.
35.
36.
Sam QH, Chang MW, Chai LY. The fungal mycobiome and its interaction with gut bacteria in the host. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18(2):E330.PubMed
37.
Nash AK, Auchtung TA, Wong MC, et al. The gut mycobiome of the Human Microbiome Project healthy cohort. Microbiome. 2017;5:153.PubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Stern J, Miller G, Li X, Saxena D. Virome and bacteriome: two sides of the same coin. Curr Opin Virol. 2019;37:37–43.PubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Mukhopadhya I, Segal JP, Carding SR, Hart AL, Hold GL. The gut virome: the ‘missing link’ between gut bacteria and host immunity? Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2019;12:1756284819836620.PubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Moreno-Gallego JL, Chou SP, Di Rienzi SC, et al. Virome diversity correlates with intestinal microbiome diversity in adult monozygotic twins. Cell Host Microbe. 2019;25:261.e5–272.e5.
41.
Xia LC, Cram JA, Chen T, Fuhrman JA, Sun F. Accurate genome relative abundance estimation based on shotgun metagenomic reads. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e27992.PubMedPubMedCentral
42.
43.
44.
Compeau PE, Pevzner PA, Tesler G. How to apply de Bruijn graphs to genome assembly. Nat Biotechnol. 2011;29:987–991.PubMedPubMedCentral
45.
Namiki T, Hachiya T, Tanaka H, Sakakibara Y. MetaVelvet: an extension of Velvet assembler to de novo metagenome assembly from short sequence reads. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:e155.PubMedPubMedCentral
46.
Peng Y, Leung HC, Yiu SM, FY Chin. IDBA-UD: a de novo assembler for single-cell and metagenomic sequencing data with highly uneven depth. Bioinformatics. 2012;28:1420–1428.PubMed
47.
Nurk S, Meleshko D, Korobeynikov A, Pevzner PA. metaSPAdes: a new versatile metagenomic assembler. Genome Res. 2017;27:824–834.PubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Li D, Liu CM, Luo R, Sadakane K, Lam TW. MEGAHIT: an ultra-fast single-node solution for large and complex metagenomics assembly via succinct de Bruijn graph. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:1674–1676.PubMed
49.
Claesson MJ, Clooney AG, O’Toole PW. A clinician’s guide to microbiome analysis. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;14:585–595.PubMed
50.
Wood DE, Salzberg SL. Kraken: ultrafast metagenomic sequence classification using exact alignments. Genome Biol. 2014;15:R46.PubMedPubMedCentral
51.
Truong DT, Franzosa EA, Tickle TL, et al. MetaPhlAn2 for enhanced metagenomic taxonomic profiling. Nat Methods. 2015;12:902–903.PubMed
52.
Bashiardes S, Zilberman-Schapira G, Elinav E. Use of metatranscriptomics in microbiome research. Bioinform Biol Insights. 2016;10:19–25.PubMedPubMedCentral
53.
Bikel S, Valdez-Lara A, Cornejo-Granados F, et al. Combining metagenomics, metatranscriptomics and viromics to explore novel microbial interactions: towards a systems-level understanding of human microbiome. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2015;13:390–401.PubMedPubMedCentral
54.
55.
Xie Y, Wu G, Tang J, et al. SOAPdenovo-Trans: de novo transcriptome assembly with short RNA-Seq reads. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:1660–1666.PubMed
56.
Jorth P, Turner KH, Gumus P, Nizam N, Buduneli N, Whiteley M. Metatranscriptomics of the human oral microbiome during health and disease. MBio. 2014;5:e01012–e01014.PubMedPubMedCentral
57.
Lamichhane S, Sen P, Dickens AM, Orešič M, Bertram HC. Gut metabolome meets microbiome: a methodological perspective to understand the relationship between host and microbe. Methods. 2018;149:3–12.PubMed
58.
Zierer J, Jackson MA, Kastenmüller G, et al. The fecal metabolome as a functional readout of the gut microbiome. Nat Genet. 2018;50:790–795.PubMedPubMedCentral
59.
Lai LA, Tong Z, Chen R, S Pan. Metaproteomics study of the gut microbiome. Methods Mol Biol. 2019;1871:123–132.PubMed
60.
Blakeley-Ruiz JA, Erickson AR, Cantarel BL, et al. Metaproteomics reveals persistent and phylum-redundant metabolic functional stability in adult human gut microbiomes of Crohn’s remission patients despite temporal variations in microbial taxa, genomes, and proteomes. Microbiome. 2019;7:18.PubMedPubMedCentral
61.
Kuczynski J, Lauber CL, Walters WA, et al. Experimental and analytical tools for studying the human microbiome. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;13:47–58.PubMedPubMedCentral
62.
Chao A. Estimating the population size for capture-recapture data with unequal catchability. Biometrics. 1987;43:783–791.PubMed
63.
Kim BR, Shin J, Guevarra R, et al. Deciphering diversity indices for a better understanding of microbial communities. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2017;27:2089–2093.PubMed
64.
Knight R, Vrbanac A, Taylor BC, et al. Best practices for analysing microbiomes. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2018;16:410–422.PubMed
65.
Bent SJ, Forney LJ. The tragedy of the uncommon: understanding limitations in the analysis of microbial diversity. ISME J. 2008;2:689–695.PubMed
66.
Barwell LJ, Isaac NJ, Kunin WE. Measuring beta-diversity with species abundance data. J Anim Ecol. 2015;84:1112–1122.PubMedPubMedCentral
67.
68.
Lozupone C, Knight R. UniFrac: a new phylogenetic method for comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71:8228–8235.PubMedPubMedCentral
69.
McMurdie PJ, Holmes S. phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e61217.PubMedPubMedCentral
70.
Langille MG, Zaneveld J, Caporaso JG, et al. Predictive functional profiling of microbial communities using 16S rRNA marker gene sequences. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31:814–821.PubMedPubMedCentral
71.
Asshauer KP, et al. Tax4Fun: predicting functional profiles from metagenomic 16S rRNA data. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:2882–2884.PubMedPubMedCentral
72.
Edgar RC. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:2460–2461.PubMed
73.
Huerta-Cepas J, Szklarczyk D, Forslund K, et al. eggNOG 4.5: a hierarchical orthology framework with improved functional annotations for eukaryotic, prokaryotic and viral sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:D286–D293.PubMed
74.
Tatusov RL, et al. The COG database: an updated version includes eukaryotes. BMC Bioinf. 2003;4:41.
75.
Finn RD, Bateman A, Clements P, et al. Pfam: the protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:D222–D230.PubMed
76.
Selengut JD, et al. TIGRFAMs and Genome Properties: tools for the assignment of molecular function and biological process in prokaryotic genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35:D260–D264.PubMed
77.
Hunter S, Apweilwer R, Attwood TK, et al. InterPro: the integrative protein signature database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37:D211–D215.PubMed
78.
Ulgen E, Ozisik O, Sezerman OU. pathfindR: an R package for comprehensive identification of enriched pathways in omics data through active subnetworks. Front Genet. 2019;10:858.PubMedPubMedCentral
79.
Nishida K, Ono K, Kanaya S, Takahashi K. KEGGscape: a Cytoscape app for pathway data integration. F1000Res. 2014;3:144.PubMedPubMedCentral
80.
Keegan KP, Glass EM, Meyer F. MG-RAST, a metagenomics service for analysis of microbial community structure and function. Methods Mol Biol. 2016;1399:207–233.PubMed
81.
Huson DH, Beier S, Flade I, et al. MEGAN community edition—interactive exploration and analysis of large-scale microbiome sequencing data. PLoS Comput Biol. 2016;12:e1004957.PubMedPubMedCentral
82.
Abubucker S, Segata N, Goll J, et al. Metabolic reconstruction for metagenomic data and its application to the human microbiome. PLoS Comput Biol. 2012;8:e1002358.PubMedPubMedCentral
83.
Peters DL, Wang W, Zhang X, Ning Z, Mayne J, Figeys D. Metaproteomic and metabolomic approaches for characterizing the gut microbiome. Proteomics. 2019;19:e1800363.PubMed
84.
Verberkmoes NC, Russell Rl, Shah M, et al. Shotgun metaproteomics of the human distal gut microbiota. ISME J. 2009;3:179–189.PubMed
85.
Galloway-Pena J, Guindani M. Editorial: novel approaches in microbiome analyses and data visualization. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:2274.PubMedPubMedCentral
86.
Sudarikov K, Tyakht A, Alexeev D. Methods for the metagenomic data visualization and analysis. Curr Issues Mol Biol. 2017;24:37–58.PubMed
87.
88.
Kelly BJ, Gross R, Bittinger K, et al. Power and sample-size estimation for microbiome studies using pairwise distances and PERMANOVA. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:2461–2468.PubMedPubMedCentral
89.
Tang ZZ, Chen G, Alekseyenko AV. PERMANOVA-S: association test for microbial community composition that accommodates confounders and multiple distances. Bioinformatics. 2016;32:2618–2625.PubMedPubMedCentral
90.
Mandal S, Van Treuren W, White RA, Eggesbø M, Knight R, Peddada SD. Analysis of composition of microbiomes: a novel method for studying microbial composition. Microb Ecol Health Dis. 2015;26:27663.PubMed
91.
Staley C, Sadowsky MJ. Practical considerations for sampling and data analysis in contemporary metagenomics-based environmental studies. J Microbiol Methods. 2018;154:14–18.PubMed
92.
93.
94.
Fang H, Huang C, Zhao H, Deng M. CCLasso: correlation inference for compositional data through Lasso. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:3172–3180.PubMedPubMedCentral
95.
Kurtz ZD, Müller CL, Miraldi ER, Littman DR, Blaser MJ, Bonneau RA. Sparse and compositionally robust inference of microbial ecological networks. PLoS Comput Biol. 2015;11:e1004226.PubMedPubMedCentral
96.
Faust K, Sathirapongsasuti JF, Izard J, et al. Microbial co-occurrence relationships in the human microbiome. PLoS Comput Biol. 2012;8:e1002606.PubMedPubMedCentral
97.
La Rosa PS, Brooks JP, Deych E, et al. Hypothesis testing and power calculations for taxonomic-based human microbiome data. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e52078.PubMedPubMedCentral
98.
Karpinets TV, Park BH, Uberbacher EC. Analyzing large biological datasets with association networks. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:e131.PubMedPubMedCentral
99.
Knights D, Costello EK, Knight R. Supervised classification of human microbiota. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2011;35:343–359.PubMed
100.
Zhang Q, Abel H, Wells A, et al. Selection of models for the analysis of risk-factor trees: leveraging biological knowledge to mine large sets of risk factors with application to microbiome data. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:1607–1613.PubMedPubMedCentral
101.
Kennedy EA, King KY, Baldridge MT. Mouse microbiota models: comparing germ-free mice and antibiotics treatment as tools for modifying gut bacteria. Front Physiol. 2018;9:1534.PubMedPubMedCentral
102.
Gootenberg DB, Turnbaugh PJ. Companion animals symposium: humanized animal models of the microbiome. J Anim Sci. 2011;89:1531–1537.PubMed
103.
Douglas, A.E., Simple animal models for microbiome research. Nat Rev Microbiol 2019;17(12):764–775.PubMed
104.
Hacquard S, Garrido-Oter R, González A, et al. Microbiota and host nutrition across plant and animal kingdoms. Cell Host Microbe. 2015;17:603–616.PubMed
105.
Pearce SC, Coia HG, Karl JP, et al. Intestinal in vitro and ex vivo models to study host-microbiome interactions and acute stressors. Front Physiol. 2018;9:1584.PubMedPubMedCentral
106.
Dutton JS, Hinman SS, Kim R, Wang Y, Allbritton NL. Primary cell-derived intestinal models: recapitulating physiology. Trends Biotechnol. 2019;37:744–760.PubMed
107.
McDonald JA, Fuentes S, Schroeter K, et al. Simulating distal gut mucosal and luminal communities using packed-column biofilm reactors and an in vitro chemostat model. J Microbiol Methods. 2015;108:36–44.PubMed
108.
Van den Abbeele P, roos S, Eeckhaut V, et al. Incorporating a mucosal environment in a dynamic gut model results in a more representative colonization by lactobacilli. Microb Biotechnol. 2012;5:106–115.PubMed
109.
Auchtung JM, Robinson CD, Britton RA. Cultivation of stable, reproducible microbial communities from different fecal donors using minibioreactor arrays (MBRAs). Microbiome. 2015;3:42.PubMedPubMedCentral
110.
Stevens LJ, van Lipzig MM, Erpelinck SL, et al. A higher throughput and physiologically relevant two-compartmental human ex vivo intestinal tissue system for studying gastrointestinal processes. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2019;137:104989.PubMed
111.
Nigro G, Hanson M, Fevre C, Lecuit M, Sansonetti PJ. Intestinal organoids as a novel tool to study microbes-epithelium interactions. Methods Mol Biol. 2019;1576:183–194.PubMed
112.
Debelius J, Song SJ, Vazquez-Baeza Y, Xu ZZ, Gonzalez A, Knight R. Tiny microbes, enormous impacts: what matters in gut microbiome studies? Genome Biol. 2016;17:217.PubMedPubMedCentral
113.
Poussin C, Sierro N, Boué S, et al. Interrogating the microbiome: experimental and computational considerations in support of study reproducibility. Drug Discov Today. 2018;23:1644–1657.PubMed
114.
David LA, Materna AC, Friedman J, et al. Host lifestyle affects human microbiota on daily timescales. Genome Biol. 2014;15:R89.PubMedPubMedCentral
115.
116.
Mehta RS, Abu-Ali GS, Drew DA, et al. Stability of the human faecal microbiome in a cohort of adult men. Nat Microbiol. 2018;3:347–355.PubMedPubMedCentral
117.
Faith JJ, Guruge JL, Charbonneau M, et al. The long-term stability of the human gut microbiota. Science. 2013;341:1237439.PubMedPubMedCentral
118.
Martinez I, Muller CE, Walter J. Long-term temporal analysis of the human fecal microbiota revealed a stable core of dominant bacterial species. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e69621.PubMedPubMedCentral
119.
Baksi KD, Kuntal BK, Mande SS. ‘TIME’: a web application for obtaining insights into microbial ecology using longitudinal microbiome data. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:36.PubMedPubMedCentral
120.
Lugo-Martinez J, Ruiz-Perez D, Narasimhan D, Bar-Joseph Z. Dynamic interaction network inference from longitudinal microbiome data. Microbiome. 2019;7:54.PubMedPubMedCentral
121.
Cleary JG, Littin R, Trigg L, Irvine S, Hilbush B. Quantitative analysis of shotgun metagenomic data with the real time genomics platform. J Biomol Tech: JBT. 2013;24:S33.PubMedCentral
122.
UniProt Consortium. UniProt: a hub for protein information. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43:D204–D212.
123.
Misra BB, Langefeld C, Olivier M, Cox LA. Integrated omics: tools, advances, and future approaches. J Mol Endocrinol. 2018;62:R21–R45.
124.
Noor E, Cherkaoui S, Sauer U. Biological insights through omics data integration. Current Opinion in Systems Biology. 2019;15:39–47.
125.
Baron SA, Diene SM, Rolain J-M. Human microbiomes and antibiotic resistance. Human Microbiome Journal. 2018;10:43–52.
126.
Escudeiro P, Pothier J, Dionisio F, Nogueira T. Antibiotic resistance gene diversity and virulence gene diversity are correlated in human gut and environmental microbiomes. mSphere. 2019;4:e00135-19.PubMedPubMedCentral
127.
128.
Bernard G, Pathmanathan JS, Lannes R, Lopez R, Bapteste E. Microbial dark matter investigations: how microbial studies transform biological knowledge and empirically sketch a logic of scientific discovery. Genome Biol Evol. 2018;10:707–715.PubMedPubMedCentral
Metadaten
Titel
Tools for Analysis of the Microbiome
verfasst von
Jessica Galloway-Peña
Blake Hanson
Publikationsdatum
31.01.2020
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Digestive Diseases and Sciences / Ausgabe 3/2020
Print ISSN: 0163-2116
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2568
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-020-06091-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2020

Digestive Diseases and Sciences 3/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Review

Microbial-Based and Microbial-Targeted Therapies for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

Review

Enteric Virome and Carcinogenesis in the Gut

Review

Microbiome and Its Role in Irritable Bowel Syndrome

Review

Gut-host Crosstalk: Methodological and Computational Challenges

Review

Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Chronic Liver Diseases: Current Understanding and Future Direction

Editorial

Human Microbiome in Health and Disease: The Good, the Bad, and the Bugly

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Kostenlos registrieren

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

24.04.2024 | DGIM 2024 | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

Metformin rückt in den Hintergrund

24.04.2024 | DGIM 2024 | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

Myokarditis nach Infekt – richtig schwierig wird es bei Profisportlern

24.04.2024 | DGIM 2024 | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

Thrombophiliescreening – Wenn, dann richtig und nur bei therapeutischer Konsequenz

24.04.2024 | DGIM 2024 | Nachrichten

Bei Senioren mit Prostatakarzinom auf Anämie achten!
weitere anzeigen

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise