Abstract
Flow cytometry has recently established itself as a tool to track short-term dynamics in microbial community assembly and link those dynamics with ecological parameters. However, instrumental configurations of commercial cytometers and variability introduced through differential handling of the cells and instruments frequently cause data set variability at the single-cell level. This is especially pronounced with microorganisms, which are in the lower range of optical resolution. Although alignment beads are valuable to generally minimize instrumental noise and align overall machine settings, an artificial microbial cytometric mock community (mCMC) is mandatory for validating lab workflows and enabling comparison of data between experiments, thus representing a necessary reference standard for the reproducible cytometric characterization of microbial communities, especially in long-term studies. In this study, the mock community consisted of two Gram-positive and two Gram-negative bacterial strains, which can be assembled with respective subsets of cells, including spores, in any selected ratio or concentration. The preparation of the four strains takes a maximum of 5 d, and the stains are storable with either PFA/ethanol fixation at –20 °C or drying at 4 °C for at least 6 months. Starting from this stock, an mCMC can be assembled within 1 h. Fluorescence staining methods are presented and representatively applied with two high-resolution cell sorters and three benchtop flow cytometers. Benchmarked data sets allow the use of bioinformatic evaluation procedures to decode community behavior or convey qualified cell sorting decisions for subsequent high-resolution sequencing or proteomic routines.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $21.58 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The cytometric data sets generated during the current study are available under FlowRepository: https://flowrepository.org/, no. FR-FCM-Z2CJ. The Illumina MiSeq data sets generated during the current study are available under BioProject: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject, accession no. PRJNA541369.
Code and software availability
All links to the R scripts used in the current study are listed in the Equipment section.
R package flowCybar: http://bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/html/flowCyBar.html.
R package flowCHIC: http://www.bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/html/flowCHIC.html.
R script for the evaluation of the microscopic pictures (https://github.com/Allerdnec/InsightPro.git, developed by C. Lepleux).
References
Müller, S. & Nebe-von-Caron, G. Functional single-cell analyses: flow cytometry and cell sorting of microbial populations and communities. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 34, 554–587 (2010).
Günther, S. et al. Species-sorting and mass-transfer paradigms control managed natural metacommunities. Environ. Microbiol. 18, 4862–4877 (2016).
Props, R., Monsieurs, P., Mysara, M., Clement, L. & Boon, N. Measuring the biodiversity of microbial communities by flow cytometry. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1376–1385 (2016).
Liu, Z. et al. Ecological stability properties of microbial communities assessed by flow cytometry. mSphere 3, e00564–17 (2018).
Liu, Z. et al. Neutral mechanisms and niche differentiation in steady-state insular microbial communities revealed by single cell analysis. Environ. Microbiol. 21, 164–181 (2019).
De Vrieze, J., Boon, N. & Verstrate, W. Taking the technical microbiome into the next decade. Environ. Microbiol. 20, 1991–2000 (2018).
Koch, C. et al. Cytometric fingerprinting for analyzing microbial intracommunity structure variation and identifying subcommunity function. Nat. Protoc. 8, 190–202 (2013).
Mage, L. M. et al. Shape-based separation of synthetic microparticles. Nat. Mater. 18, 82–89 (2019).
Müller, S. Modes of cytometric bacterial DNA pattern: a tool for pursuing growth. Cell Prolif. 40, 621–639 (2007).
Ludwig, J., Höner zu Siederdissen, C., Liu, Z., Stadler, P. F. & Müller, S. flowEMMi: an automated model-based clustering tool for microbial cytometric data. BMC Bioinforma. 20, 643 (2019).
Koch, C., Fetzer, I., Harms, H. & Müller, S. CHIC-an automated approach for the detection of dynamic variations in complex microbial communities. Cytom. A 83, 561–567 (2013).
Liu, Z. & Müller, S. Bacterial community diversity dynamics highlight degrees of nestedness and turnover patterns. Cytom. Part A https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cyto.a.23965 (2020)
Aghaeepour, N. et al. Critical assessment of automated flow cytometry data analysis techniques. Nat. Methods 10, 228–238 (2013).
Peters, J. M. & Ansari, M. Q. Multiparameter flow cytometry in the diagnosis and management of acute leukemia. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 135, 44–54 (2011).
Bendall, S. C. et al. Single-cell mass cytometry of differential immune and drug responses across a human hematopoietic continuum. Science 332, 687–696 (2011).
Spitzer, H. M. & Nolan, G. P. Mass cytometry: single cells, many features. Cell 165, 780–791 (2016).
Overmann, J., Abt, B. & Sikorski, J. Present and future of culturing bacteria. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 8, 711–730 (2017).
Nayfach, S., Shi, Z. J., Seshadri, R., Pollard, K. S. & Kyrpides, N. C. New insights from uncultivated genomes of the global human gut microbiome. Nature 568, 505–510 (2019).
Roesch, L. F. et al. Pyrosequencing enumerates and contrasts soil microbial diversity. ISME J. 1, 283–290 (2007).
Singer, E. et al. Next generation sequencing data of a defined microbial mock community. Sci. Data 3, 160081 (2016).
Hallmaier-Wacker, L. K., Lueert, S., Roos, C. & Knauf, S. The impact of storage buffer, DNA extraction method, and polymerase on microbial analysis. Sci. Rep. 8, 6292 (2018).
Hardwick, S. A. et al. Synthetic microbe communities provide internal reference standards for metagenome sequencing and analysis. Nat. Commun. 9, 3096 (2018).
Hornung, B. V. H., Zwittink, R. D. & Kuijper, E. J. Issues and current standards of controls in microbiome research. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 95, fiz045 (2019).
Sze, M. A. & Schloss, P. D. The impact of DNA polymerase and number of rounds of amplification in PCR on 16S rRNA gene sequence data. mSphere 4, e00163–19 (2019).
Clingenpeel, S., Clum, A., Schwientel, P., Rinke, C. & Woyke, T. Reconstructing each cell’s genome within complex communities—dream or reality? Front. Microbiol. 8, 771 (2015).
Stepanauskas, R. et al. Improved genome recovery and intergrated cell-size analyses of individual uncultured microbial cells and viral particles. Nat. Commun. 8, 84 (2017).
De Bruin, O. M. & Birnboim, H. C. A method for assessing efficiency of bacterial cell disruption and DNA release. BMC Microbiol. 16, 197 (2016).
Mie, G. Beiträge zur optik trüber medien, speziell kolloidaler metallösungen. Ann. Phys. 25, 377–445 (1908).
Woyke, T., Doud, D. F. R. & Schulz, F. The trajectory of microbial single-cell sequencing. Nat. Methods 14, 1045–1054 (2017).
Jahn, M. et al. Subpopulation-proteomics in prokaryotic populations. Curr. Opin. Biotech. 24, 79–87 (2013).
Schloss, P. D. et al. Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75, 7537–7541 (2009).
Edgar, R. C., Haas, B. J., Clemente, J. C., Quince, C. & Knight, R. UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection. Bioinformatics 27, 2194–2200 (2011).
Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, 2016).
Lane, D. J. in Nucleic Acid Techniques in Bacterial Systematics (eds. Stackebrandt, E. & Goodfellow, M.) 115–175 (Wiley, 1991).
Lambrecht, J. et al. Flow cytometric quantification, sorting and sequencing of methanogenic archaea based on F420 autofluorescence. Microb. Cell Fact. 16, 180 (2017).
Besmer, M. D. et al. The feasibility of automated online flow cytometry for in-situ monitoring of microbial dynamics in aquatic ecosystems. Front. Microbiol 5, 265 (2014).
Takahashi, S., Tomita, J., Nishioka, K., Hisada, T. & Nishijima, M. Development of a prokaryotic universal primer for simultaneous analysis of bacteria and archaea using next-generation sequencing. PLoS ONE 9, e105592 (2014).
Herlemann, D. P. et al. Transitions in bacterial communities along the 2000 km salinity gradient of the Baltic Sea. ISME J. 5, 1571–1579 (2011).
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Central Innovation Programme for SMEs (ZIM) of the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy Germany (BMWi; INAR-ABOS,16KN043222), the European Regional Development Funds (EFRE—Europe Funds Saxony, grant 100192205) and the Helmholtz Association within RP Renewable Energies. We thank C. Lepleux for developing the script for evaluation of the microscopic data (https://github.com/Allerdnec/InsightPro.git) and Z. Liu for creating Fig. 6 and Supplementary Methods 3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
N.C., T.H. and F.S. performed the experiments and prepared the samples. N.C., T.H., F.-M.K. and F.S. measured the samples. N.C. and T.H. performed the data analysis. N.C., F.-M.K., J.O. and S.M. wrote the manuscript. T.H. and S.M. conceived the ideas and designed the study. S.M. supervised the work. All authors contributed critically to the drafts and gave final approval for publication.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Related links
Key references using this protocol
Ludwig, J., Höner zu Siederdissen, C., Liu Z, Stadler, P.F. & Müller, S. BMC Bioinformatics 20, 643 (2019): https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-019-3152-3
Liu, Z. & Müller, S. Cytom. Part A (2020): https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.a.23965
Protocol Extension
This protocol is an extension to Nat. Protoc. 8, 190–202 (2013): https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2012.149
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Figs. 1–4, Supplementary Methods 1–3 and Supplementary Tables 1–6.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cichocki, N., Hübschmann, T., Schattenberg, F. et al. Bacterial mock communities as standards for reproducible cytometric microbiome analysis. Nat Protoc 15, 2788–2812 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-020-0362-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-020-0362-0
This article is cited by
-
Fast quantification of gut bacterial species in cocultures using flow cytometry and supervised classification
ISME Communications (2022)
-
Community and single cell analyses reveal complex predatory interactions between bacteria in high diversity systems
Nature Communications (2021)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.