Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2023; 36(02): 098-104
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1760678
Review Article

A Brief History of Microbial Study and Techniques for Exploring the Gastrointestinal Microbiome

Ashley M. Sidebottom
1   Duchossois Family Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Over the past 20 years, the study of microbial communities has benefited from simultaneous advancements across several fields resulting in a high-resolution view of human consortia. Although the first bacterium was described in the mid-1600s, the interest in community membership and function has not been a focus or feasible until recent decades. With strategies such as shotgun sequencing, microbes can be taxonomically profiled without culturing and their unique variants defined and compared across phenotypes. Approaches such as metatranscriptomics, metaproteomics, and metabolomics can define the current functional state of a population through the identification of bioactive compounds and significant pathways. Prior to sample collection in microbiome-based studies it is critical to evaluate the requirements of downstream analyses to ensure accurate processing and storage for generation of high data quality. A common pipeline for the analysis of human samples includes approval of collection protocols and method finalization, patient sample collection, sample processing, data analysis, and visualization. Human-based microbiome studies are inherently challenging but with the application of complementary multi-omic strategies there is an unbounded potential for discovery.

Keywords

microbiome - microbial communities - multi-omics - microbe


Publication History

Article published online:
25 January 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Macconkey A. Lactose-fermenting bacteria in faeces. J Hyg (Lond) 1905; 5 (03) 333-379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hall IC. A constricted tube with mechanical seal for anaerobic fermentation tests. J Infect Dis 1921; 29 (04) 317-320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sebald M, Hauser D. Pasteur, oxygen and the anaerobes revisited. Anaerobe 1995; 1 (01) 11-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Behring E. Ueber das Zustandekommen der Diphtherie-Immunität und der Tetanus-Immunität bei Thieren. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1890; 16 (49) 1113-1114
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Fleischmann RD, Adams MD, White O. et al. Whole-genome random sequencing and assembly of Haemophilus influenzae Rd. Science 1995; 269 (5223): 496-512
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Fraser CM, Gocayne JD, White O. et al. The minimal gene complement of Mycoplasma genitalium. Science 1995; 270 (5235): 397-403
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Handelsman J, Rondon MR, Brady SF, Clardy J, Goodman RM. Molecular biological access to the chemistry of unknown soil microbes: a new frontier for natural products. Chem Biol 1998; 5 (10) R245-R249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Tyson GW, Chapman J, Hugenholtz P. et al. Community structure and metabolism through reconstruction of microbial genomes from the environment. Nature 2004; 428 (6978): 37-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Cardona S, Eck A, Cassellas M. et al. Storage conditions of intestinal microbiota matter in metagenomic analysis. BMC Microbiol 2012; 12 (01) 158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Santiago A, Panda S, Mengels G. et al. Processing faecal samples: a step forward for standards in microbial community analysis. BMC Microbiol 2014; 14: 112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Quince C, Walker AW, Simpson JT, Loman NJ, Segata N. Shotgun metagenomics, from sampling to analysis. Nat Biotechnol 2017; 35 (09) 833-844
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Wesolowska-Andersen A, Bahl MI, Carvalho V. et al. Choice of bacterial DNA extraction method from fecal material influences community structure as evaluated by metagenomic analysis. Microbiome 2014; 2: 19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Szóstak N, Szymanek A, Havránek J. et al. The standardisation of the approach to metagenomic human gut analysis: from sample collection to microbiome profiling. Sci Rep 2022; 12 (01) 8470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Chen LX, Anantharaman K, Shaiber A, Eren AM, Banfield JF. Accurate and complete genomes from metagenomes. Genome Res 2020; 30 (03) 315-333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Eren AM, Kiefl E, Shaiber A. et al. Community-led, integrated, reproducible multi-omics with anvi'o. Nat Microbiol 2021; 6 (01) 3-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Yaung SJ, Deng L, Li N. et al. Improving microbial fitness in the mammalian gut by in vivo temporal functional metagenomics. Mol Syst Biol 2015; 11 (03) 788
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Shaiber A, Willis AD, Delmont TO. et al. Functional and genetic markers of niche partitioning among enigmatic members of the human oral microbiome. Genome Biol 2020; 21 (01) 292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Pasolli E, Asnicar F, Manara S. et al. Extensive unexplored human microbiome diversity revealed by over 150,000 genomes from metagenomes spanning age, geography, and lifestyle. Cell 2019; 176 (03) 649-662.e20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kong C, Liang L, Liu G. et al. Integrated metagenomic and metabolomic analysis reveals distinct gut-microbiome-derived phenotypes in early-onset colorectal cancer. Gut 2022;(August):gutjnl-2022-327156
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Nagata N, Nishijima S, Kojima Y. et al. Metagenomic identification of microbial signatures predicting pancreatic cancer from a multinational study. Gastroenterology 2022; 163 (01) 222-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Reck M, Tomasch J, Deng Z, Jarek M, Husemann P, Wagner-Döbler I. COMBACTE Consortium. Stool metatranscriptomics: a technical guideline for mRNA stabilisation and isolation. BMC Genomics 2015; 16 (01) 494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Singh A, Vats S, Bhargava P. Advances and Challenges in Metatranscriptomic Analysis. Microbial Metatranscriptomics Belowground. 2021: 453-469
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Schirmer M, Franzosa EA, Lloyd-Price J. et al. Dynamics of metatranscription in the inflammatory bowel disease gut microbiome. Nat Microbiol 2018; 3 (03) 337-346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Tanca A, Palomba A, Pisanu S. et al. A straightforward and efficient analytical pipeline for metaproteome characterization. Microbiome 2014; 2 (01) 49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Tanca A, Abbondio M, Fiorito G. et al. Metaproteomic profile of the colonic luminal microbiota from patients with colon cancer. Front Microbiol 2022; 13: 869523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Long S, Yang Y, Shen C. et al. Metaproteomics characterizes human gut microbiome function in colorectal cancer. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 2020; 6 (01) 14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Allen BH, Gupta N, Edirisinghe JN, Faria JP, Henry CS. Application of the metabolic modeling pipeline in KBase to categorize reactions, predict essential genes, and predict pathways in an isolate genome. Methods Mol Biol 2022; 2349: 291-320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Dührkop K, Fleischauer M, Ludwig M. et al. SIRIUS 4: a rapid tool for turning tandem mass spectra into metabolite structure information. Nat Methods 2019; 16 (04) 299-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Wang M, Carver JJ, Phelan VV. et al. Sharing and community curation of mass spectrometry data with global natural products social molecular networking. Nat Biotechnol 2016; 34 (08) 828-837
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Quinn RA, Melnik AV, Vrbanac A. et al. Global chemical effects of the microbiome include new bile-acid conjugations. Nature 2020; 579 (7797): 123-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Gumpenberger T, Brezina S, Keski-Rahkonen P. et al. Untargeted metabolomics reveals major differences in the plasma metabolome between colorectal cancer and colorectal adenomas. Metabolites 2021; 11 (02) 119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Integrative HMP (iHMP) Research Network Consortium. The integrative human microbiome project. Nature 2019; 569 (7758): 641-648
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Human Microbiome Project Consortium. Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature 2012; 486 (7402): 207-214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Wang Z, Zolnik CP, Qiu Y. et al. Comparison of fecal collection methods for microbiome and metabolomics studies. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2018; 8: 301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Costea PI, Zeller G, Sunagawa S. et al. Towards standards for human fecal sample processing in metagenomic studies. Nat Biotechnol 2017; 35 (11) 1069-1076
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Salvato F, Hettich RL, Kleiner M. Five key aspects of metaproteomics as a tool to understand functional interactions in host-associated microbiomes. PLoS Pathog 2021; 17 (02) e1009245
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Trefflich I, Marschall HU, Giuseppe RD. et al. Associations between dietary patterns and bile acids-results from a cross-sectional study in vegans and omnivores. Nutrients 2019; 12 (01) 47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Ramamoorthy S, Levy S, Mohamed M. et al. An ambient-temperature storage and stabilization device performs comparably to flash-frozen collection for stool metabolomics in infants. BMC Microbiol 2021; 21 (01) 59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar