Microbes are everywhere โ in air, soil, water, humans, and even in extreme environments. They drive:
Understanding whoโs there (identification) and what they do (function) is key. But bacteria are invisible ๐ โ so we need methods to identify them!
Grow bacteria on plates. โ Pros: allows study of metabolism and traits. โ Cons: only a small fraction can be cultured, slow, and selective. Metaphor: studying wild wolves ๐บ by raising a poodle ๐ถ โ not the same!
Youโve probably used this before! โ Visualizes bacteria in situ, no need to culture. โ Slow, limited by probe design (you only see what you look for). Good for morphology and spatial distribution.
The core of modern microbiome analysis.
โ Fast, affordable, and cultivation-independent. โ You get names, not functions directly, and biases exist (primer mismatch, copy number variation).
Critical first step. Must represent the environment (soil, wastewater, etc.). Bad sample = bad data.
Goal: isolate pure DNA.
Prepare DNA for sequencing:
Samples are pooled โ reduces cost.
| Database | Traits | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| SILVA | Broad, high-quality | Not updated since 2018 โ ๏ธ |
| RDP | Classic but outdated | โ ๏ธ old |
| Greengenes | Updated but variable quality | |
| MiDAS ๐งซ | Ecosystem-specific (wastewater, biogas) | In-house, high-quality full-length sequences |
๐ Use ecosystem-specific DBs when possible for better functional inference.
A matrix like this:
| ASV ID | Sample 1 | Sample 2 | ... | Phylum | Genus | Species |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASV1 | 100 | 55 | ... | Proteobacteria | Nitrospira | ... |
This connects identity (taxonomy) with abundance (how much is there).
Measures how rich and even a single community is.
High diversity โ more stable ecosystems.
Compares similarity or dissimilarity between samples. Example: microbiomes in healthy vs sick individuals ๐งโโ๏ธ๐งโโ๏ธ Similar composition โ similar state.
Bacterial groups found consistently across many samples. Helps identify โkey playersโ and environmental drivers in ecosystems.