↓ Skip to main content

Strong spurious transcription likely contributes to DNA insert bias in typical metagenomic clone libraries

Overview of attention for article published in Microbiome, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Strong spurious transcription likely contributes to DNA insert bias in typical metagenomic clone libraries
Published in
Microbiome, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40168-015-0086-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathy N. Lam, Trevor C. Charles

Abstract

Clone libraries provide researchers with a powerful resource to study nucleic acid from diverse sources. Metagenomic clone libraries in particular have aided in studies of microbial biodiversity and function, and allowed the mining of novel enzymes. Libraries are often constructed by cloning large inserts into cosmid or fosmid vectors. Recently, there have been reports of GC bias in fosmid metagenomic libraries, and it was speculated to be a result of fragmentation and loss of AT-rich sequences during cloning. However, evidence in the literature suggests that transcriptional activity or gene product toxicity may play a role. To explore possible mechanisms responsible for sequence bias in clone libraries, we constructed a cosmid library from a human microbiome sample and sequenced DNA from different steps during library construction: crude extract DNA, size-selected DNA, and cosmid library DNA. We confirmed a GC bias in the final cosmid library, and we provide evidence that the bias is not due to fragmentation and loss of AT-rich sequences but is likely occurring after DNA is introduced into Escherichia coli. To investigate the influence of strong constitutive transcription, we searched the sequence data for promoters and found that rpoD/σ(70) promoter sequences were underrepresented in the cosmid library. Furthermore, when we examined the genomes of taxa that were differentially abundant in the cosmid library relative to the original sample, we found the bias to be more correlated with the number of rpoD/σ(70) consensus sequences in the genome than with simple GC content. The GC bias of metagenomic libraries does not appear to be due to DNA fragmentation. Rather, analysis of promoter sequences provides support for the hypothesis that strong constitutive transcription from sequences recognized as rpoD/σ(70) consensus-like in E. coli may lead to instability, causing loss of the plasmid or loss of the insert DNA that gives rise to the transcription. Despite widespread use of E. coli to propagate foreign DNA in metagenomic libraries, the effects of in vivo transcriptional activity on clone stability are not well understood. Further work is required to tease apart the effects of transcription from those of gene product toxicity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 4%
Canada 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 45 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 22%
Researcher 11 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 6 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 47%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 December 2019.
All research outputs
#6,858,332
of 25,381,384 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
#1,468
of 1,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,923
of 274,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
#15
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,381,384 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,744 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.4. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,372 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.