Database limitations for studying the human gut microbiome

Abstract

Background In the last twenty years, new methodologies have made possible the gathering of large amounts of data concerning the genetic information and metabolic functions associated to the human gut microbiome. In spite of that, processing all this data available might not be the simplest of tasks, which could result in an excess of information awaiting proper annotation. This assessment intended on evaluating how well respected databases could describe a mock human gut microbiome. Methods In this work, we critically evaluate the output of the cross–reference between the Uniprot Knowledge Base (Uniprot KB) and the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes Orthologs (KEGG Orthologs) or the evolutionary genealogy of genes: Non-supervised Orthologous groups (EggNOG) databases regarding a list of species that were previously found in the human gut microbiome. Results From a list which contemplates 131 species and 52 genera, 53 species and 40 genera had corresponding entries for KEGG Database and 82 species and 47 genera had corresponding entries for EggNOG Database. Moreover, we present the KEGG Orthologs (KOs) and EggNOG Orthologs (NOGs) entries associated to the search as their distribution over species and genera and lists of functions that appeared in many species or genera, the “core” functions of the human gut microbiome. We also present the relative abundance of KOs and NOGs throughout phyla and genera. Lastly, we expose a variance found between searches with different arguments on the database entries. Inferring functionality based on cross-referencing UniProt and KEGG or EggNOG can be lackluster due to the low number of annotated species in Uniprot and due to the lower number of functions affiliated to the majority of these species. Additionally, the EggNOG database showed greater performance for a cross-search with Uniprot about a mock human gut microbiome. Notwithstanding, efforts targeting cultivation, single-cell sequencing or the reconstruction of high-quality metagenome-assembled genomes (MAG) and their annotation are needed to allow the use of these databases for inferring functionality in human gut microbiome studies.

Inflammation‐driven brain and gut barrier dysfunction in stress and mood disorders

“…However, the use of different sequencing technologies, for instance, 16S rRNA gene‐sequencing compared to the more sensitive metagenomic sequencing, introduces subtle differences in result interpretation. Even modern high‐throughput sequencing of DNA has limitations, highlighted recently using a mock human gut microbiome for assessment of current databases (Dias et al., 2020). Lack of specific microbiota signatures of mood disorders is also an issue as many disagree on even broad level changes in MDD patients (Chung et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2018; Jiang et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2016; Parker et al., 2019).…”

The occurrence and diversity of antibiotic resistance and virulence factor genes in wastewater from four North American treatment plants

“…As a result, this underrepresentation or absence of KOs associated with species and genera in the database could limit our biological interpretation of important information from novel microbial species or genera. 62 This limitation has been observed by other studies and major efforts have been made to identify and preserve functional genes of unique species globally. 63 In future studies, the use of additional databases and functional annotation for ARGs is necessary to expand the identification of all clinically relevant ARGs and provide greater clarity of a specific host-association of ARGs and ARB.…”

The Gut Microbiome and Its Implication in the Mucosal Digestive Disorders

“…The available experimental and bioinformatics methods leave space for bias and unreliable results [ 125 ]. There is also a lack of compatibility between existing databases, mainly because there is not a correct scale to be used when comparing the taxonomy and the functions associated to a microbiome [ 126 ]. There is also the aspect of the absence of a complete and comprehensive set of microbiome samples and metadata about them to be available for public use.…”