Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2019 Jun 10;14(6):e0214354.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214354. eCollection 2019.

Genomes from bacteria associated with the canine oral cavity: A test case for automated genome-based taxonomic assignment

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Genomes from bacteria associated with the canine oral cavity: A test case for automated genome-based taxonomic assignment

David A Coil et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Taxonomy for bacterial isolates is commonly assigned via sequence analysis. However, the most common sequence-based approaches (e.g. 16S rRNA gene-based phylogeny or whole genome comparisons) are still labor intensive and subjective to varying degrees. Here we present a set of 33 bacterial genomes, isolated from the canine oral cavity. Taxonomy of these isolates was first assigned by PCR amplification of the 16S rRNA gene, Sanger sequencing, and taxonomy assignment using BLAST. After genome sequencing, taxonomy was revisited through a manual process using a combination of average nucleotide identity (ANI), concatenated marker gene phylogenies, and 16S rRNA gene phylogenies. This taxonomy was then compared to the automated taxonomic assignment given by the recently proposed Genome Taxonomy Database (GTDB). We found the results of all three methods to be similar (25 out of the 33 had matching genera), but the GTDB approach required fewer subjective decisions, and required far less labor. The primary differences in the non-identical taxonomic assignments involved cases where GTDB has proposed taxonomic revisions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

This work was funded by Mars Petcare UK, the employer of Corrin Wallis, Ian J. Davis, Stephen Harris, Lucy J. Holcombe and Ciaran O’Flynn. There are no products in development or marketed products to declare. This does not alter the authors’ adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

References

    1. Sedlar K, Kupkova K, Provaznik I. Bioinformatics strategies for taxonomy independent binning and visualization of sequences in shotgun metagenomics. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2017;15: 48–55. 10.1016/j.csbj.2016.11.005 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sun Y, Cai Y, Huse SM, Knight R, Farmerie WG, Wang X, et al. A large-scale benchmark study of existing algorithms for taxonomy-independent microbial community analysis. Brief Bioinform. 2012;13: 107–121. 10.1093/bib/bbr009 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chun J, Rainey FA. Integrating genomics into the taxonomy and systematics of the Bacteria and Archaea. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2014;64: 316–324. 10.1099/ijs.0.054171-0 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chun J, Oren A, Ventosa A, Christensen H, Arahal DR, da Costa MS, et al. Proposed minimal standards for the use of genome data for the taxonomy of prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2018;68: 461–466. 10.1099/ijsem.0.002516 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sentausa E, Fournier P-E. Advantages and limitations of genomics in prokaryotic taxonomy. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2013;19: 790–795. 10.1111/1469-0691.12181 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types