Identification and analysis of fungal communities commonly rely on internal transcribed spacer (ITS)-based amplicon sequencing. There is no gold standard to infer and classify fungal constituents since methodologies have been adapted from analyses of bacterial communities. To achieve high resolution inference of fungal constituents, we customized a DADA2-based pipeline using a mix of eleven medically relevant fungi. While DADA2 allowed the discrimination of ITS1 sequences differing by single nucleotides, quality filtering, sequencing bias, and database selection were identified as key variables determining the accuracy of sample inference. Due to species-specific differences in sequencing quality, default filtering settings removed most reads that originated from Aspergillus species, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and Candida glabrata. By fine-tuning the quality filtering process, we achieved an improved representation of the fungal communities. By adapting a wobble nucleotide in the ITS1 forward primer region, we further increased the yield of S. saccharomyces and C. glabrata sequences. Finally, we showed that a BLAST-based algorithm based on the UNITE+INSD or the NCBI NT database achieved a higher reliability in species-level taxonomic annotation than the naïve Bayesian classifier implemented in DADA2. These steps optimized a robust fungal ITS1 sequencing pipeline that, in most instances, enabled species level-assignment of community members.
Thierry Rolling, Bing Zhai, John Frame, Tobias M. Hohl, Ying Taur
Usage data is cumulative from November 2021 through December 2021.
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.