henhaobio
Sign in

BMC BioinformaticsBioinformaticsPeer-reviewed journal article

Simulating metagenomic stable isotope probing datasets with MetaSIPSim

Samuel E. BarnettiD, Daniel H. BuckleyiD

PDFDOIPreprint

Abstract

BackgroundDNA-stable isotope probing (DNA-SIP) links microorganisms to their in-situ function in diverse environmental samples. Combining DNA-SIP and metagenomics (metagenomic-SIP) allows us to link genomes from complex communities to their specific functions and improves the assembly and binning of these targeted genomes. However, empirical development of metagenomic-SIP methods is hindered by the complexity and cost of these studies. We developed a toolkit, MetaSIPSim, to simulate sequencing read libraries for metagenomic-SIP experiments. MetaSIPSim is intended to generate datasets for method development and testing. To this end, we used MetaSIPSim generated data to demonstrate the advantages of metagenomic-SIP over a conventional shotgun metagenomic sequencing experiment.\n\nResultsThrough simulation we show that metagenomic-SIP improves the assembly and binning of isotopically labeled genomes relative to a conventional metagenomic approach. Improvements were dependent on experimental parameters and on sequencing depth. Community level G+C content impacted the assembly of labeled genomes and subsequent binning, where high community G+C generally reduced the benefits of metagenomic-SIP. Furthermore, when a high proportion of the community is isotopically labeled, the benefits of metagenomic-SIP decline. Finally, the choice of gradient fractions to sequence greatly influences method performance.\n\nConclusionsMetagenomic-SIP is a valuable method for recovering isotopically labeled genomes from complex communities. We show that metagenomic-SIP performance depends on optimization of experimental parameters. MetaSIPSim allows for simulation of metagenomic-SIP datasets which facilitates the optimization and development of metagenomic-SIP experiments and analytical approaches for dealing with these data.

Citations
17
FWCI
0.89
Field percentile
top 31%

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.