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.]
 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe