New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Microbiome Studies Contaminated by Sequencing Supplies

Nonsterile lab reagents and DNA extraction kits add their own assortment of DNA to microbiome samples. Christopher Intagliata reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In this age of cheap DNA technology, scientists are sequencing every sample they can get their hands on. They've ID'd the microbes in mosquito guts, coral mucus and frog skin; in polar ice; even floating in the Earth's atmosphere. But it turns out some of the bugs reported to belong to those unusual microbiomes could unfortunately be contaminants, from non-sterile lab reagents and DNA extraction kits. So says a study in the journal BMC Biology. [Susannah J Salter et al.: Reagent and laboratory contamination can critically impact sequence-based microbiome analyses]

Researchers sequenced a pure sample of just one type of bacteria. But depending which kit they used, which reagents, which lab, their results contained DNA from up to 270 different bacterial strains. Many of those contaminating strains are commonly found on human skin…(a lab technician's, maybe?). Or in soil or water. Which could explain why one recent study turned up soil bacteria in samples of breast cancer tissue, the researchers say. Another study found that infants' throat bacteria change as they get older. But these researchers say the changing bacterial communities in that study were due not to age—but to changing the brand of DNA kit over time.

Study author Alan Walker, of the University of Aberdeen, says contamination is only a problem if you're working with samples that aren't already rich in bacteria. "If you're doing fecal work, for example, this probably doesn't concern you, because there's enough DNA coming from the actual sample that it'll drown out any of the background contamination." His recommendation for scientists? Alongside the actual samples, try sequencing nothing…to see what sort of shadow microbiome is already lurking in your lab.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
 

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe