2%), Bacteroidetes (86.2%), and Actinobacteria (0.7%). As shown in Figure  3, there was variability in the relative abundance of phyla by subject for Bacteroidetes (p = 0.003), Firmicutes (p = 0.0023), and Actinobacteria Selleckchem AC220 (p = 0.0002). For Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, and Actinobacteria, relative abundances from PRT062607 molecular weight samples stored in any one of the three

unfrozen methods were not statistically different from relative abundances for samples immediately frozen (p > 0.05 for all). Figure 3 Relative abundances of phyla by subject and by collection method. Card (1A-3A), Room Temperature (1B-3B), RNAlater (1C-3C), Frozen (1D-3D). Kruskal-Wallis or Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon tests were used to test for overall differences using SAS software (version 9.3). Discussion We found no evidence of significant

differences in gut microbial community composition and taxon distributions for storage at room temperature on a fecal occult blood test card or in an Eppendorf tube compared to immediately frozen samples. Not surprisingly, overall microbial diversity varied by subject. We found a decrease in DNA purity for samples collected with RNAlater. Although the effect of collection container has not been previously assessed, our general observation that inter-individual click here differences in bacterial composition were greater than the differences by collection method is consistent with findings from previous studies. Multiple studies have tested storage durations (up to six months) and storage temperatures ranging from 20°C to −80°C; most studies [4, 15, 16], though not all [17, 18], have found that these fecal collection methods did not significantly influence the gut microbiome selleck chemicals diversity and taxon distribution. Two other studies reported that storage at −20°C for up to 53 days influenced specific taxa, including Bacteroidetes abundance [19] and the Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes

ratio [20], however, we did not observe these trends in our study. Samples collected with RNAlater had significantly lower DNA purity and tended to show lower microbial diversity. RNAlater is used to stabilize and protect RNA from degradation in tissue during long term storage and has been shown to also be suitable for DNA preservation [21]. However, we observed that fecal samples were very hard to disperse evenly in RNAlater during processing and that DNA purity was lower. Low-quality DNA can interfere with downstream applications including PCR amplification [22], a possible reason for the trend toward reduced Shannon indices. Two studies showed that storage in RNAlater is suitable for PCR amplification of bacterial DNA [5, 6]. While the first study showed that total DNA yields from RNAlater samples were higher compared to refrigeration storage and liquid nitrogen freezing, the impact on Shannon indices was not described [5].