Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 22, 2025

Tick Microbiome Characterization by Next-Generation 16S rRNA Amplicon Sequencing
Published on: August 25, 2018
Quantifying technical confounders in microbiome studies
Theda U P Bartolomaeus1,2,3,4, Till Birkner1,2,3, Hendrik Bartolomaeus1,2,3,4,5
1Experimental and Clinical Research Center, a Cooperation of Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, Lindenberger Weg 80, 13125 Berlin, Germany.
Aims:
Recent technical developments have allowed the study of the human microbiome to accelerate at an unprecedented pace. Methodological differences may have considerable impact on the results obtained. Thus, we investigated how different storage, isolation, and DNA extraction methods can influence the characterization of the intestinal microbiome, compared to the impact of true biological signals such as intraindividual variability, nutrition, health, and demographics.
Methods And Results:
An observative cohort study in 27 healthy subjects was performed. Participants were instructed to collect stool samples twice spaced by a week, using six different methods (naive and Zymo DNA/RNA Shield on dry ice, OMNIgene GUT, RNALater, 95% ethanol, Zymo DNA/RNA Shield at room temperature). DNA extraction from all samples was performed comparatively using QIAamp Power Fecal and ZymoBIOMICS DNA Kits. 16S rRNA sequencing of the gut microbiota as well as qPCRs were performed on the isolated DNA. Metrics included alpha diversity as well as multivariate and univariate comparisons of samples, controlling for covariate patterns computationally. Interindividual differences explained 7.4% of overall microbiome variability, whereas the choice of DNA extraction method explained a further 5.7%. At phylum level, the tested kits differed in their recovery of Gram-positive bacteria, which is reflected in a significantly skewed enterotype distribution.
Conclusion:
DNA extraction methods had the highest impact on observed microbiome variability, and were comparable to interindividual differences, thus may spuriously mimic the microbiome signatures of various health and nutrition factors. Conversely, collection methods had a relatively small influence on microbiome composition. The present study provides necessary insight into the technical variables which can lead to divergent results from seemingly similar study designs. We anticipate that these results will contribute to future efforts towards standardization of microbiome quantification procedures in clinical research.
Related Concept Videos
Confounding in Epidemiological Studies
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
Microbial Growth Measurement: Indirect Methods
Microbial Growth Measurement: Direct Methods

