Repository logo
 

Assessing and removing the effect of unwanted technical variations in microbiome data.

Published version
Peer-reviewed

Change log

Abstract

Varying technologies and experimental approaches used in microbiome studies often lead to irreproducible results due to unwanted technical variations. Such variations, often unaccounted for and of unknown source, may interfere with true biological signals, resulting in misleading biological conclusions. In this work, we aim to characterize the major sources of technical variations in microbiome data and demonstrate how in-silico approaches can minimize their impact. We analyzed 184 pig faecal metagenomes encompassing 21 specific combinations of deliberately introduced factors of technical and biological variations. Using the novel Removing Unwanted Variations-III-Negative Binomial (RUV-III-NB), we identified several known experimental factors, specifically storage conditions and freeze-thaw cycles, as likely major sources of unwanted variation in metagenomes. We also observed that these unwanted technical variations do not affect taxa uniformly, with freezing samples affecting taxa of class Bacteroidia the most, for example. Additionally, we benchmarked the performances of different correction methods, including ComBat, ComBat-seq, RUVg, RUVs, and RUV-III-NB. While RUV-III-NB performed consistently robust across our sensitivity and specificity metrics, most other methods did not remove unwanted variations optimally. Our analyses suggest that a careful consideration of possible technical confounders is critical during experimental design of microbiome studies, and that the inclusion of technical replicates is necessary to efficiently remove unwanted variations computationally.

Description

Funder: University of Melbourne; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001782


Funder: Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100014643


Funder: Munz Chair of Cardiovascular Prediction and Prevention


Funder: Medical Research Council; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000265


Funder: Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000266


Funder: Economic and Social Research Council; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000269


Funder: Department of Health and Social Care; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000276


Funder: Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100014589


Funder: Health and Social Care Research and Development Division; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100010756


Funder: Public Health Agency; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001626


Funder: British Heart Foundation; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000274


Funder: Wellcome; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004440


Funder: State Government of Victoria; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004752


Funder: Australian Research Council; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000923

Journal Title

Sci Rep

Conference Name

Journal ISSN

2045-2322
2045-2322

Volume Title

Publisher

Springer Nature

Rights and licensing

Except where otherwised noted, this item's license is described as http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Relationships

Is derived from: