Critical review of 16S rRNA gene sequencing workflow in microbiome studies: From primer selection to advanced data analysis

Authors:
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The multi‐batch reanalysis approach of jointly reevaluating gene/genome sequences from different works has gained particular relevance in the literature in recent years. The large amount of 16S ribosomal ribonucleic acid (rRNA) gene sequence data stored in public repositories and information in taxonomic databases of the same gene far exceeds that related to complete genomes. This review is intended to guide researchers new to studying microbiota, particularly the oral microbiota, using 16S rRNA gene sequencing and those who want to expand and update their knowledge to optimise their decision‐making and improve their research results. First, we describe the advantages and disadvantages of using the 16S rRNA gene as a phylogenetic marker and the latest findings on the impact of primer pair selection on diversity and taxonomic assignment outcomes in oral microbiome studies. Strategies for primer selection based on these results are introduced. Second, we identified the key factors to consider in selecting the sequencing technology and platform. The process and particularities of the main steps for processing 16S rRNA gene‐derived data are described in detail to enable researchers to choose the most appropriate bioinformatics pipeline and analysis methods based on the available evidence. We then produce an overview of the different types of advanced analyses, both the most widely used in the literature and the most recent approaches. Several indices, metrics and software for studying microbial communities are included, highlighting their advantages and disadvantages. Considering the principles of clinical metagenomics, we conclude that future research should focus on rigorous analytical approaches, such as developing predictive models to identify microbiome‐based biomarkers to classify health and disease states. Finally, we address the batch effect concept and the microbiome‐specific methods for accounting for or correcting them.

This publication has 186 references indexed in Scilit: