1887

Chapter 36 : Metagenomics of Meat and Poultry

MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.

Preview this chapter:
Zoom in
Zoomout

Metagenomics of Meat and Poultry, Page 1 of 2

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/10.1128/9781555819972/9781555819965.ch36-1.gif /docserver/preview/fulltext/10.1128/9781555819972/9781555819965.ch36-2.gif

Abstract:

This chapter focuses on the understanding and application of metagenomics as it applies to meat and poultry research. Key concepts for understanding metagenomics include how to conduct a metagenomic study from experimental design to analysis, the difference between shotgun metagenomics and 16S rRNA amplicon studies, and data visualization. Special consideration is also given to discussions on rarefaction and normalizing data. Application of metagenomics in meat and poultry production from both a food safety and a food quality standpoint is discussed in relation to the current body of work published and possible future directions. Meat and poultry food safety is framed around reduction and detection of pathogens, while food quality includes shelf life and packaging differences. The conditions in which animals are reared and the processing environments they are harvested in are considered in the context of impact on end food quality and safety. Additionally, the public heath and regulatory implications of using shotgun metagenomics as a tool for pathogen detection and reduction are addressed.

Citation: Weinroth M, Noyes N, Morley P, Belk K. 2019. Metagenomics of Meat and Poultry, p 939-962. In Doyle M, Diez-Gonzalez F, Hill C (ed), Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers, 5th Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555819972.ch36
Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

Figures

Image of Figure 36.1
Figure 36.1

The pangenome and core genome, based on the Edwards-Venn cogwheel and designed by O. Zhaxybayeva, Dartmouth College. The pangenome of a group refers to the sum of all the genes that are present in members of the group. Pangenomes comprise the core genome, which comprises the genes found in all members of a group of interest, and the accessory genome, genes that are present in only one or a few members of the group. The concept of a pangenome has led to the idea that steps in metabolic pathways may be distributed over several individuals within a community. The Black Queen hypothesis suggests that the combination of leaky functions—genes that produce a product that is shared with others in the community—with a selection for small genomes will lead to a situation in which leaky functions are encoded in the genomes of only a fraction of community members that produce this function as a common good. The pangenomes of many taxa seem to be open (that is, of an unlimited size), although the combination of limited population size and limited time of divergence from a common ancestor certainly limits the numbers of genes actually present in a given taxon. Estimated pangenome sizes taking population size and divergence time into consideration can be large; for example, the pangenome has been estimated to contain approximately 58,000 genes, whereas the individual genomes of the members of this genus contain only about 2,000 genes each. Reprinted from reference .

Citation: Weinroth M, Noyes N, Morley P, Belk K. 2019. Metagenomics of Meat and Poultry, p 939-962. In Doyle M, Diez-Gonzalez F, Hill C (ed), Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers, 5th Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555819972.ch36
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of Figure 36.2
Figure 36.2

The cost of sequencing per megabase pair from 2001 to 2015. Reprinted from reference .

Citation: Weinroth M, Noyes N, Morley P, Belk K. 2019. Metagenomics of Meat and Poultry, p 939-962. In Doyle M, Diez-Gonzalez F, Hill C (ed), Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers, 5th Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555819972.ch36
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of Figure 36.3
Figure 36.3

Flow diagram of a typical metagenome project. Dashed arrows indicate steps that can be omitted. Reprinted from reference .

Citation: Weinroth M, Noyes N, Morley P, Belk K. 2019. Metagenomics of Meat and Poultry, p 939-962. In Doyle M, Diez-Gonzalez F, Hill C (ed), Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers, 5th Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555819972.ch36
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of Figure 36.4
Figure 36.4

Coverage of the archaeal 16S rRNA gene by sequences included in RIM-DB. Sequence variability is expressed as a Shannon index for each alignment position using a 50-bp moving average. Sequence coverage per base is indicated by the heat map and was calculated using a 50-bp moving average. Approximate positions of frequently targeted regions (V1-V2, V3-V5, and V6-V8) for amplicon sequencing are shown for orientation and nucleotide numbering and correspond to positions in the 16S rRNA gene. Reprinted from reference .

Citation: Weinroth M, Noyes N, Morley P, Belk K. 2019. Metagenomics of Meat and Poultry, p 939-962. In Doyle M, Diez-Gonzalez F, Hill C (ed), Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers, 5th Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555819972.ch36
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of Figure 36.5
Figure 36.5

Rarefaction plot of individual liver sample from Chao1 measurements. The leveling off in all samples indicates that an appropriate sampling depth was reached to estimate the diversity of the community. Reprinted with permission from reference .

Citation: Weinroth M, Noyes N, Morley P, Belk K. 2019. Metagenomics of Meat and Poultry, p 939-962. In Doyle M, Diez-Gonzalez F, Hill C (ed), Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers, 5th Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555819972.ch36
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of Figure 36.6
Figure 36.6

Demonstration of cumulative sum scaling (B) and rarefying (C) of raw sequences (A).

Citation: Weinroth M, Noyes N, Morley P, Belk K. 2019. Metagenomics of Meat and Poultry, p 939-962. In Doyle M, Diez-Gonzalez F, Hill C (ed), Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers, 5th Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555819972.ch36
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of Figure 36.7
Figure 36.7

Examples of common ways metagenomic data are presented. (A) Taxonomy plot (reprinted from reference ); (B) nonmetric multidimensional scaling ordination plots (reprinted from reference ); (C) heat maps (reprinted from reference ); (D) phylogenic relationship trees (reprinted from reference ); (E) principal coordinate analysis (reprinted from reference ); (F) network analysis (reprinted from reference ).

Citation: Weinroth M, Noyes N, Morley P, Belk K. 2019. Metagenomics of Meat and Poultry, p 939-962. In Doyle M, Diez-Gonzalez F, Hill C (ed), Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers, 5th Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555819972.ch36
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of Figure 36.8
Figure 36.8

Contribution of different factors to the overall cost of a sequencing project across time. (Left) The four-step process: (i) experimental design and sample collection, (ii) sequencing, (iii) data reduction and management, and (iv) downstream analysis. (Right) Changes over time of the relative impact of these four components of a sequencing experiment. BAM, binary sequence alignment/map; CRAM, compression algorithm; MRF, mapped read format; RPKM, reads per kilobase million; TAR, transcriptionally active region; VCF, variant call format. Reprinted from reference .

Citation: Weinroth M, Noyes N, Morley P, Belk K. 2019. Metagenomics of Meat and Poultry, p 939-962. In Doyle M, Diez-Gonzalez F, Hill C (ed), Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers, 5th Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555819972.ch36
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of Figure 36.9
Figure 36.9

Because metagenomics is primarily associated with short-read sequences, species-specific differentiation is difficult due to different species containing the same homologous sections of nucleotides. Therefore, the section of the genome sequenced may be in a species-specific region of the genome (A or C) or may be shared by both bacteria (B) and would therefore not allow differentiation.

Citation: Weinroth M, Noyes N, Morley P, Belk K. 2019. Metagenomics of Meat and Poultry, p 939-962. In Doyle M, Diez-Gonzalez F, Hill C (ed), Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers, 5th Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555819972.ch36
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of Figure 36.10
Figure 36.10

Hierarchy of commensals (not to scale). Pathogenic commensals make up only a tiny fraction of the total microbial environment. Greatly underrated and understudied are the multitudes of “core” and transient colonizers, i.e., commensals that constitute the major reservoirs of resistance genes. To some degree, commensals can be distinguished by their place in the environment and the relationships with their hosts. Some colonizers of the skin, oropharynx, and intestinal tract rarely if ever cause disease (e.g., the lactic acid bacteria). Yet another group is considered generally nonpathogenic, but when imbalances or shifts occur in the selective pressures on their microbial niches, these species can be propelled to the status of pathogens, made more problematic if they have acquired resistance or virulence genes from neighboring commensals. These constitute the group of opportunistic or pathogenic commensals. , which regularly or transiently colonizes about 80% of humans, now frequently crosses this border. and other traditionally commensal coagulase-negative staphylococci only occasionally cause nosocomial infections and only under extreme selective pressures, such as those exerted by indwelling catheters and depressed immunologic states. Organisms that commonly harbor native or “constitutive” resistance in their chromosomes (e.g., , , and ) also may emerge under these conditions. Most commensals, however, exist as environmental residents of soil and water habitats, many of which may become transient colonizers of humans and animals through the food chain and other routes of exposure. The accumulated evidence suggests widespread gene exchange among these groups. Reprinted from reference .

Citation: Weinroth M, Noyes N, Morley P, Belk K. 2019. Metagenomics of Meat and Poultry, p 939-962. In Doyle M, Diez-Gonzalez F, Hill C (ed), Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers, 5th Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555819972.ch36
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of Figure 36.11
Figure 36.11

Significant co-occurrence and coexclusion relationships between bacterial operational taxonomic units. Spearman's rank correlation matrix of operational taxonomic units with an abundance of ≥0.1% in at least five samples. Only phylotypes assigned to the phyla and were considered. Strong correlations are indicated by large circles, whereas weak correlations are indicated by small circles. The colors of the scale bar denote the nature of the correlation, with 1 indicating a perfectly positive correlation (dark blue) and −1 indicating a perfectly negative correlation (dark red) between two phylotypes. Only significant correlations (false discovery rate < 0.05) are shown. Reprinted from reference .

Citation: Weinroth M, Noyes N, Morley P, Belk K. 2019. Metagenomics of Meat and Poultry, p 939-962. In Doyle M, Diez-Gonzalez F, Hill C (ed), Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers, 5th Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555819972.ch36
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of Figure 36.12
Figure 36.12

Relative abundances of sequence reads assigned as indicated. f, family-level classification. Reprinted from reference .

Citation: Weinroth M, Noyes N, Morley P, Belk K. 2019. Metagenomics of Meat and Poultry, p 939-962. In Doyle M, Diez-Gonzalez F, Hill C (ed), Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers, 5th Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555819972.ch36
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of Figure 36.13
Figure 36.13

Incidence of operational taxonomic unit tracebacks based on bTEFAP (bacterial tag-encoded FLX amplicon pyrosequencing) analysis of all the DNA samples directly extracted from meat at different times and under different storage conditions. Only taxa with an incidence above 9% in at least one sample are shown, and only percentages above 1% are displayed in the histograms. Shown are results for storage in air (A), MAP (B), vacuum packaging (C), and active vacuum packaging (D). Reprinted from reference .

Citation: Weinroth M, Noyes N, Morley P, Belk K. 2019. Metagenomics of Meat and Poultry, p 939-962. In Doyle M, Diez-Gonzalez F, Hill C (ed), Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers, 5th Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555819972.ch36
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of Figure 36.14
Figure 36.14

The rare microbiome in Salame Piacentino DOP samples: distribution of families accounting for less than 5% of the total bacterial diversity in the 63 samples analyzed. The total number of sequences retrieved and the number of genera represented are reported for each rare family. A heat-mapping color scale indicates the relative distribution of positive samples among producers, ripening times, and presence or absence of starter addition. Reprinted from reference .

Citation: Weinroth M, Noyes N, Morley P, Belk K. 2019. Metagenomics of Meat and Poultry, p 939-962. In Doyle M, Diez-Gonzalez F, Hill C (ed), Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers, 5th Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555819972.ch36
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint

References

/content/book/10.1128/9781555819972.ch36
1. Soucy SM, Huang J, Gogarten JP . 2015. Horizontal gene transfer: building the web of life. Nat Rev Genet 16 : 472 482[CrossRef].[PubMed]
2. Suau A, Bonnet R, Sutren M, Godon JJ, Gibson GR, Collins MD, Doré J . 1999. Direct analysis of genes encoding 16S rRNA from complex communities reveals many novel molecular species within the human gut. Appl Environ Microbiol 65 : 4799 4807.[PubMed]
3. Youssef NH, Couger MB, McCully AL, Criado AEG, Elshahed MS . 2015. Assessing the global phylum level diversity within the bacterial domain: a review. J Adv Res 6 : 269 282[CrossRef].[PubMed]
4. Thomas T, Gilbert J, Meyer F . 2012. Metagenomics—a guide from sampling to data analysis. Microb Inform Exp 2 : 3[CrossRef].[PubMed]
5. Handelsman J, Rondon MR, Brady SF, Clardy J, Goodman RM . 1998. Molecular biological access to the chemistry of unknown soil microbes: a new frontier for natural products. Chem Biol 5 : R245 R249[CrossRef].[PubMed]
6. Culligan EP, Sleator RD . 2016. Editorial: from genes to species: novel insights from metagenomics. Front Microbiol 7 : 1181[CrossRef].[PubMed]
7. Simon C, Daniel R . 2011. Metagenomic analyses: past and future trends. Appl Environ Microbiol 77 : 1153 1161[CrossRef].[PubMed]
8. Sanger F, Nicklen S, Coulson AR . 1977. DNA sequencing with chain-terminating inhibitors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 74 : 5463 5467[CrossRef].[PubMed]
9. Schuster SC . 2008. Next-generation sequencing transforms today's biology. Nat Methods 5 : 16 18[CrossRef].[PubMed]
10. Heather JM, Chain B . 2016. The sequence of sequencers: the history of sequencing DNA. Genomics 107 : 1 8[CrossRef].[PubMed]
11. Muir P, Li S, Lou S, Wang D, Spakowicz DJ, Salichos L, Zhang J, Weinstock GM, Isaacs F, Rozowsky J, Gerstein M . 2016. The real cost of sequencing: scaling computation to keep pace with data generation. Genome Biol 17 : 53. ERRATUM Genome Biol 17 : 78[CrossRef].[PubMed]
12. van Dijk EL, Jaszczyszyn Y, Thermes C . 2014. Library preparation methods for next-generation sequencing: tone down the bias. Exp Cell Res 322 : 12 20[CrossRef].[PubMed]
13. Miller JR, Koren S, Sutton G . 2010. Assembly algorithms for next-generation sequencing data. Genomics 95 : 315 327[CrossRef].[PubMed]
14. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ . 1990. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 215 : 403 410[CrossRef].[PubMed]
15. Li H, Durbin R . 2010. Fast and accurate long-read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 26 : 589 595[CrossRef].[PubMed]
16. Leinonen R, Sugawara H, Shumway M International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration . 2011. The sequence read archive. Nucleic Acids Res 39( Database) : D19 D21[CrossRef].[PubMed]
17. Jovel J, Patterson J, Wang W, Hotte N, O'Keefe S, Mitchel T, Perry T, Kao D, Mason AL, Madsen KL, Wong GK-S . 2016. Characterization of the gut microbiome using 16S or shotgun metagenomics. Front Microbiol 7 : 459[CrossRef].[PubMed]
18. Parks DH, Beiko RG . 2013. Measures of phylogenetic differentiation provide robust and complementary insights into microbial communities. ISME J 7 : 173 183[CrossRef].[PubMed]
19. Segata N, Waldron L, Ballarini A, Narasimhan V, Jousson O, Huttenhower C . 2012. Metagenomic microbial community profiling using unique clade-specific marker genes. Nat Methods 9 : 811 814[CrossRef].[PubMed]
20. Bayat A . 2002. Science, medicine, and the future: bioinformatics. BMJ 324 : 1018 1022[CrossRef].[PubMed]
21. Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B . 2014. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30 : 2114 2120[CrossRef].[PubMed]
22. Afgan E, Baker D, van den Beek M, Blankenberg D, Bouvier D, Čech M, Chilton J, Clements D, Coraor N, Eberhard C, Grüning B, Guerler A, Hillman-Jackson J, Von Kuster G, Rasche E, Soranzo N, Turaga N, Taylor J, Nekrutenko A, Goecks J . 2016. The Galaxy platform for accessible, reproducible and collaborative biomedical analyses: 2016 update. Nucleic Acids Res 44( W1) : W3 W10[CrossRef].[PubMed]
23. Goecks J, Nekrutenko A, Taylor J, Galaxy Team T Galaxy Team . 2010. Galaxy: a comprehensive approach for supporting accessible, reproducible, and transparent computational research in the life sciences. Genome Biol 11 : R86[CrossRef].[PubMed]
24. Noyes NR, Yang X, Linke LM, Magnuson RJ, Dettenwanger A, Cook S, Geornaras I, Woerner DE, Gow SP, McAllister TA, Yang H, Ruiz J, Jones KL, Boucher CA, Morley PS, Belk KE . 2016. Resistome diversity in cattle and the environment decreases during beef production. eLife 5 : e13195[CrossRef].[PubMed]
25. Sulonen A-M, Ellonen P, Almusa H, Lepistö M, Eldfors S, Hannula S, Miettinen T, Tyynismaa H, Salo P, Heckman C, Joensuu H, Raivio T, Suomalainen A, Saarela J . 2011. Comparison of solution-based exome capture methods for next generation sequencing. Genome Biol 12 : R94[CrossRef].[PubMed]
26. Weiss S, Xu ZZ, Peddada S, Amir A, Bittinger K, Gonzalez A, Lozupone C, Zaneveld JR, Vázquez-Baeza Y, Birmingham A, Hyde ER, Knight R . 2017. Normalization and microbial differential abundance strategies depend upon data characteristics. Microbiome 5 : 27[CrossRef].[PubMed]
27. Aird D, Ross MG, Chen W-S, Danielsson M, Fennell T, Russ C, Jaffe DB, Nusbaum C, Gnirke A . 2011. Analyzing and minimizing PCR amplification bias in Illumina sequencing libraries. Genome Biol 12 : R18[CrossRef].[PubMed]
28. Paulson JN, Stine OC, Bravo HC, Pop M . 2013. Differential abundance analysis for microbial marker-gene surveys. Nat Methods 10 : 1200 1202[CrossRef].[PubMed]
29. Martín-Fernández J-A, Hron K, Templ M, Filzmoser P, Palarea-Albaladejo J . 2015. Bayesian-multiplicative treatment of count zeros in compositional data sets. Stat Model 15 : 134 158[CrossRef].
30. McMurdie PJ, Holmes S . 2014. Waste not, want not: why rarefying microbiome data is inadmissible. PLOS Comput Biol 10 : e1003531[CrossRef].[PubMed]
31. Chouvarine P, Wiehlmann L, Moran Losada P, DeLuca DS, Tümmler B . 2016. Filtration and normalization of sequencing read data in whole-metagenome shotgun samples. PLoS One 11 : e0165015[CrossRef].[PubMed]
32. Tang Z-Z, Chen G, Alekseyenko AV . 2016. PERMANOVA-S: association test for microbial community composition that accommodates confounders and multiple distances. Bioinformatics 32 : 2618 2625[CrossRef].[PubMed]
33. Hobbs ET, Pereira T, O'Neill PK, Erill I . 2016. A Bayesian inference method for the analysis of transcriptional regulatory networks in metagenomic data. Algorithms Mol Biol 11 : 19.
34. Harwood VJ, Levine AD, Scott TM, Chivukula V, Lukasik J, Farrah SR, Rose JB . 2005. Validity of the indicator organism paradigm for pathogen reduction in reclaimed water and public health protection. Appl Environ Microbiol 71 : 3163 3170[CrossRef].[PubMed]
35. Brown MH, Gill CO, Hollingsworth J, Nickelson R II, Seward S, Sheridan JJ, Stevenson T, Sumner JL, Theno DM, Usborne WR, Zink D . 2000. The role of microbiological testing in systems for assuring the safety of beef. Int J Food Microbiol 62 : 7 16[CrossRef].[PubMed]
36. Barberán A, Bates ST, Casamayor EO, Fierer N . 2012. Using network analysis to explore co-occurrence patterns in soil microbial communities. ISME J 6 : 343 351. CORRIGENDUM ISME J 9 : 952[CrossRef].[PubMed]
37. Li R, Zhu H, Ruan J, Qian W, Fang X, Shi Z, Li Y, Li S, Shan G, Kristiansen K, Li S, Yang H, Wang J, Wang J . 2010. De novo assembly of human genomes with massively parallel short read sequencing. Genome Res 20 : 265 272[CrossRef].[PubMed]
38. Mayo B, Rachid CTCC, Alegría A, Leite AMO, Peixoto RS, Delgado S . 2014. Impact of next generation sequencing techniques in food microbiology. Curr Genomics 15 : 293 309[CrossRef].[PubMed]
39. Hall RM, Schwarz S . 2016. Resistance gene naming and numbering: is it a new gene or not? J Antimicrob Chemother 71 : 569 571[CrossRef].[PubMed]
40. Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, Hall JR, Hartmann M, Hollister EB, Lesniewski RA, Oakley BB, Parks DH, Robinson CJ, Sahl JW, Stres B, Thallinger GG, Van Horn DJ, Weber CF . 2009. Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 75 : 7537 7541[CrossRef].[PubMed]
41. Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK, Fierer N, Peña AG, Goodrich JK, Gordon JI, Huttley GA, Kelley ST, Knights D, Koenig JE, Ley RE, Lozupone CA, McDonald D, Muegge BD, Pirrung M, Reeder J, Sevinsky JR, Turnbaugh PJ, Walters WA, Widmann J, Yatsunenko T, Zaneveld J, Knight R . 2010. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods 7 : 335 336[CrossRef].[PubMed]
42. Tzeneva VA, Heilig HGHJ, van Vliet WA, Akkermans ADL, de Vos WM, Smidt H . 2008. 16S rRNA targeted DGGE fingerprinting of microbial communities. Methods Mol Biol 410 : 335 350[CrossRef].[PubMed]
43. Ercolini D . 2004. PCR-DGGE fingerprinting: novel strategies for detection of microbes in food. J Microbiol Methods 56 : 297 314[CrossRef].[PubMed]
44. Nieminen TT, Koskinen K, Laine P, Hultman J, Säde E, Paulin L, Paloranta A, Johansson P, Björkroth J, Auvinen P . 2012. Comparison of microbial communities in marinated and unmarinated broiler meat by metagenomics. Int J Food Microbiol 157 : 142 149[CrossRef].[PubMed]
45. Valderrama WB, Dudley EG, Doores S, Cutter CN . 2016. Commercially available rapid methods for detection of selected food-borne pathogens. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 56 : 1519 1531[CrossRef].[PubMed]
46. Hoorfar J . 2011. Rapid detection, characterization, and enumeration of foodborne pathogens. APMIS Suppl 119 : 1 24[CrossRef].[PubMed]
47. Yang X, Noyes NR, Doster E, Martin JN, Linke LM, Magnuson RJ, Yang H, Geornaras I, Woerner D, Jones KL, Ruiz J, Boucher C, Morley PS, Belk KE. 2016. Use of metagenomic shotgun sequencing technology to detect foodborne pathogens within their microbiome in beef production chain. Appl Environ Microbiol 82 : 2433 2443.
48. Bergholz TM, Moreno Switt AI, Wiedmann M . 2014. Omics approaches in food safety: fulfilling the promise? Trends Microbiol 22 : 275 281[CrossRef].[PubMed]
49. Zhang S, Yin Y, Jones MB, Zhang Z, Deatherage Kaiser BL, Dinsmore BA, Fitzgerald C, Fields PI, Deng X . 2015. Salmonella serotype determination utilizing high-throughput genome sequencing data. J Clin Microbiol 53 : 1685 1692[CrossRef].[PubMed]
50. Loman NJ, Constantinidou C, Christner M, Rohde H, Chan JZ-M, Quick J, Weir JC, Quince C, Smith GP, Betley JR, Aepfelbacher M, Pallen MJ . 2013. A culture-independent sequence-based metagenomics approach to the investigation of an outbreak of Shiga-toxigenic Escherichia coli O104:H4. JAMA 309 : 1502 1510[CrossRef].[PubMed]
51. Galia W, Leriche F, Cruveiller S, Garnier C, Navratil V, Dubost A, Blanquet-Diot S, Thevenot-Sergentet D . 2017. Strand-specific transcriptomes of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli in response to interactions with ground beef microbiota: interactions between microorganisms in raw meat. BMC Genomics 18 : 574[CrossRef].[PubMed]
52. Nakamura S, Maeda N, Miron IM, Yoh M, Izutsu K, Kataoka C, Honda T, Yasunaga T, Nakaya T, Kawai J, Hayashizaki Y, Horii T, Iida T . 2008. Metagenomic diagnosis of bacterial infections. Emerg Infect Dis 14 : 1784 1786[CrossRef].[PubMed]
53. Brito IL, Alm EJ . 2016. Tracking strains in the microbiome: insights from metagenomics and models. Front Microbiol 7 : 712[CrossRef].[PubMed]
54. Beaber JW, Hochhut B, Waldor MK . 2004. SOS response promotes horizontal dissemination of antibiotic resistance genes. Nature 427 : 72 74[CrossRef].[PubMed]
55. Djordjevic SP, Stokes HW, Chowdhury PR . 2013. Mobile elements, zoonotic pathogens and commensal bacteria: conduits for the delivery of resistance genes into humans, production animals and soil microbiota. Front Microbiol 4 : 86[CrossRef].[PubMed]
56. Giaouris E, Heir E, Desvaux M, Hébraud M, Møretrø T, Langsrud S, Doulgeraki A, Nychas G-J, Kačániová M, Czaczyk K, Ölmez H, Simões M . 2015. Intra- and inter-species interactions within biofilms of important foodborne bacterial pathogens. Front Microbiol 6 : 841[CrossRef].[PubMed]
57. Brul S, Bassett J, Cook P, Kathariou S, McClure P, Jasti PR, Betts R . 2012. “Omics” technologies in quantitative microbial risk assessment. Trends Food Sci Technol 27 : 12 24[CrossRef].
58. World Health Organization . 2012. The evolving threat of antimicrobial resistance. Options for action. World Health Organization , Geneva, Switzerland.
59. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2016. The National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System: manual of laboratory methods, 3rd ed. Center for Veterinary Medicine, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD.
60. Marshall BM, Ochieng D, Levy SB . 2009. Commensals: underappreciated reservoir of antibiotic resistance. Microbe 4 : 231 238.
61. Crofts TS, Gasparrini AJ, Dantas G . 2017. Next-generation approaches to understand and combat the antibiotic resistome. Nat Rev Microbiol 15 : 422 434[CrossRef].[PubMed]
62. Martínez JL, Coque TM, Baquero F . 2015. What is a resistance gene? Ranking risk in resistomes. Nat Rev Microbiol 13 : 116 123[CrossRef].[PubMed]
63. Penadés JR, Chen J, Quiles-Puchalt N, Carpena N, Novick RP . 2015. Bacteriophage-mediated spread of bacterial virulence genes. Curr Opin Microbiol 23 : 171 178[CrossRef].[PubMed]
64. Weinroth M, Yang X, Noyes NR, Rovira P, Martin JN, Morley PS, Belk KE . 2017. Foodborne pathogens and virulence in the microbiome of cattle grown naturally verses conventionally, p 505 507. In Proc 63rd Int Cong Meat Sci Technol, Cork, Ireland. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
65. Doyle CJ, O'Toole PW, Cotter PD . 2017. Metagenome-based surveillance and diagnostic approaches to studying the microbial ecology of food production and processing environments. Environ Microbiol 19 : 4382 4391.
66. Pothakos V, Stellato G, Ercolini D, Devlieghere F . 2015. Processing environment and ingredients are both sources of Leuconostoc gelidum, which emerges as a major spoiler in ready-to-eat meals. Appl Environ Microbiol 81 : 3529 3541[CrossRef].[PubMed]
67. Hultman J, Rahkila R, Ali J, Rousu J, Björkroth KJ . 2015. Meat processing plant microbiome and contamination patterns of cold-tolerant bacteria causing food safety and spoilage risks in the manufacture of vacuum-packaged cooked sausages. Appl Environ Microbiol 81 : 7088 7097[CrossRef].[PubMed]
68. Knights D, Kuczynski J, Charlson ES, Zaneveld J, Mozer MC, Collman RG, Bushman FD, Knight R, Kelley ST . 2011. Bayesian community-wide culture-independent microbial source tracking. Nat Methods 8 : 761 763[CrossRef].[PubMed]
69. Zolfo M, Tett A, Jousson O, Donati C, Segata N . 2017. MetaMLST: multi-locus strain-level bacterial typing from metagenomic samples. Nucleic Acids Res 45 : e7[CrossRef].[PubMed]
70. McLean D, Biggs P, Leblanc-Maridor M, Hall R, French N, Pearce N, Douwes J . 2014. Metagenomic detection of bacteria in aerosol samples in animal slaughterhouses to develop exposure profiles for an epidemiological analysis. Occup Environ Med 71( Suppl 1) : A21[CrossRef].
71. Oakley BB, Lillehoj HS, Kogut MH, Kim WK, Maurer JJ, Pedroso A, Lee MD, Collett SR, Johnson TJ, Cox NA . 2014. The chicken gastrointestinal microbiome. FEMS Microbiol Lett 360 : 100 112[CrossRef].[PubMed]
72. Weinroth MD, Carlson CR, Martin JN, Metcalf JL, Morley PS, Belk KE . 2017. Rapid Communication: 16S ribosomal ribonucleic acid characterization of liver abscesses in feedlot cattle from three states in the United States. J Anim Sci 95 : 4520 4525.
73. Mir RA, Weppelmann TA, Elzo M, Ahn S, Driver JD, Jeong KC . 2016. Colonization of beef cattle by shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli during the first year of life: a cohort study. PLoS One 11 : e0148518[CrossRef].[PubMed]
74. Ercolini D, Ferrocino I, Nasi A, Ndagijimana M, Vernocchi P, La Storia A, Laghi L, Mauriello G, Guerzoni ME, Villani F . 2011. Monitoring of microbial metabolites and bacterial diversity in beef stored under different packaging conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol 77 : 7372 7381[CrossRef].[PubMed]
75. De Filippis F, La Storia A, Villani F, Ercolini D . 2013. Exploring the sources of bacterial spoilers in beefsteaks by culture-independent high-throughput sequencing. PLoS One 8 : e70222[CrossRef].[PubMed]
76. Säde E, Penttinen K, Björkroth J, Hultman J . 2017. Exploring lot-to-lot variation in spoilage bacterial communities on commercial modified atmosphere packaged beef. Food Microbiol 62 : 147 152[CrossRef].[PubMed]
77. Ercolini D . 2013. High-throughput sequencing and metagenomics: moving forward in the culture-independent analysis of food microbial ecology. Appl Environ Microbiol 79 : 3148 3155[CrossRef].[PubMed]
78. Deng X, den Bakker HC, Hendriksen RS . 2016. Genomic epidemiology: whole-genome-sequencing-powered surveillance and outbreak investigation of foodborne bacterial pathogens. Annu Rev Food Sci Technol 7 : 353 374[CrossRef].[PubMed]
79. Bulut E, Arthur TM, Schmidt JM, Wang B . 2017. Tracking pre-harvest contamination sources of Salmonella in beef products on a quantitative basis: research updates. National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Houston, TX.
80. Althani AA, Marei HE, Hamdi WS, Nasrallah GK, El Zowalaty ME, Al Khodor S, Al-Asmakh M, Abdel-Aziz H, Cenciarelli C . 2016. Human microbiome and its association with health and diseases. J Cell Physiol 231 : 1688 1694[CrossRef].[PubMed]
81. Nurk S, Meleshko D, Korobeynikov A, Pevzner PA . 2017. metaSPAdes: a new versatile metagenomic assembler. Genome Res 27 : 824 834[CrossRef].[PubMed]
82. Lakhani KR, Boudreau KJ, Loh P-R, Backstrom L, Baldwin C, Lonstein E, Lydon M, MacCormack A, Arnaout RA, Guinan EC . 2013. Prize-based contests can provide solutions to computational biology problems. Nat Biotechnol 31 : 108 111[CrossRef].[PubMed]
83. Lasken RS, McLean JS . 2014. Recent advances in genomic DNA sequencing of microbial species from single cells. Nat Rev Genet 15 : 577 584[CrossRef].[PubMed]
84. Shahinas D, Silverman M, Sittler T, Chiu C, Kim P, Allen-Vercoe E, Weese S, Wong A, Low DE, Pillai DR . 2012. Toward an understanding of changes in diversity associated with fecal microbiome transplantation based on 16S rRNA gene deep sequencing. mBio 3 : e00338-12[CrossRef].[PubMed]
85. Hsu PD, Lander ES, Zhang F . 2014. Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering. Cell 157 : 1262 1278[CrossRef].[PubMed]
86. Jia M, Geornaras I, Belk KE, Yang H . 2017. Sequence specific removal of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli using the CRISPR-CAS9 system. Abstr. no. 116. Proceedings of the Reciprocal Meat Conference, College Station, Texas.
87. Wetterstrand KA . 2018. DNA sequencing costs: data. Data from the NHGRI Genome Sequencing Program [GSP]. National Human Genome Research Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD. www.genome.gov/sequencingcostsdata. Accessed 24 October 2018.
88. Seedorf H, Kittelmann S, Henderson G, Janssen PH . 2014. RIM-DB: a taxonomic framework for community structure analysis of methanogenic archaea from the rumen and other intestinal environments. PeerJ 2 : e494.
89. Huang AD, Luo C, Pena-Gonzalez A, Weigand MR, Tarr CL, Konstantinidis KT . 2017. Metagenomics of two severe foodborne outbreaks provides diagnostic signatures and signs of coinfection not attainable by traditional methods. Appl Environ Microbiol 83 : e02577-16[CrossRef].[PubMed]
90. Li B, Yang Y, Ma L, Ju F, Guo F, Tiedje JM, Zhang T . 2015. Metagenomic and network analysis reveal wide distribution and co-occurrence of environmental antibiotic resistance genes. ISME J 9 : 2490 2502[CrossRef].[PubMed]
91. Sboner A, Mu XJ, Greenbaum D, Auerbach RK, Gerstein MB . 2011. The real cost of sequencing: higher than you think! Genome Biol 12 : 125.
92. Polka J, Rebecchi A, Pisacane V, Morelli L, Puglisi E . 2015. Bacterial diversity in typical Italian salami at different ripening stages as revealed by high-throughput sequencing of 16S rRNA amplicons. Food Microbiol 47 : 342 356.

Tables

Generic image for table
Table 36.1

Comparison of number of reads in a 16S rRNA sequencing study and a shotgun metagenomics study

Citation: Weinroth M, Noyes N, Morley P, Belk K. 2019. Metagenomics of Meat and Poultry, p 939-962. In Doyle M, Diez-Gonzalez F, Hill C (ed), Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers, 5th Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555819972.ch36
Generic image for table
Table 36.2

serotype determination utilizing high-throughput genome sequencing data

Citation: Weinroth M, Noyes N, Morley P, Belk K. 2019. Metagenomics of Meat and Poultry, p 939-962. In Doyle M, Diez-Gonzalez F, Hill C (ed), Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers, 5th Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555819972.ch36

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error