Skip to main content
Data in Brief logoLink to Data in Brief
. 2016 Jul 5;8:938–943. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2016.06.057

16S rRNA amplicon sequencing dataset for conventionalized and conventionally raised zebrafish larvae

Daniel J Davis a, Elizabeth C Bryda a, Catherine H Gillespie a, Aaron C Ericsson a,b,
PMCID: PMC4961299  PMID: 27508247

Abstract

Data presented here contains metagenomic analysis regarding the sequential conventionalization of germ-free zebrafish embryos. Zebrafish embryos that underwent a germ-free sterilization process immediately after fertilization were promptly exposed to and raised to larval stage in conventional fish water. At 6 days postfertilization (dpf), these “conventionalized” larvae were compared to zebrafish larvae that were raised in conventional fish water never undergoing the initial sterilization process. Bacterial 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing was performed on DNA isolated from homogenates of the larvae revealing distinct microbiota variations between the two groups. The dataset described here is also related to the research article entitled “Microbial modulation of behavior and stress responses in zebrafish larvae” (Davis et al., 2016) [1].

Keywords: Microbiome, Microbiota, Zebrafish larvae, 16S rRNA sequencing, Gnotobiotic

Specifications Table

Subject area Biology
More specific subject area Microbiome analysis in zebrafish larvae
Type of data Table
How data was acquired Illumina MiSeq
Data format Raw, analyzed
Experimental factors Reconstitution of sterilized embryos with conventional microbial populations
Experimental features
  • 1)

    Microbial DNA extraction and amplification via PCR

  • 2)

    Bacterial 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing

  • 3)

    Trimming, filtering, and annotation of sequence data

Data source location Columbia, MO, USA
Latitude: 38.901366 Longitude: −92.2825 Altitude: 246 m
Data accessibility Data is within this article and available via http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/321905

Value of the data

  • The data presented here can be used as justification for the use of zebrafish larvae as a model species in gnotobiotic research.

  • These data are valuable in illustrating the consistency of microbial taxa present within a given group of larvae.

  • These data will be of use in the selection of an appropriate methodology to generate gnotobiotic zebrafish larvae.

1. Data

Data presented here represent results of 16S rRNA sequencing of V4 region amplicons, generated using the Illumina MiSeq platform. Data are presented at the taxonomic levels of phylum, family, and operational taxonomic unit, and represent an average coverage of 4235 reads per sample (Table 1). This paper contains data related to the research concurrently published in Davis et al. [1].

Table 1.

Operational taxonomic units detected in 6 dpf conventionalized and conventionally-raised zebrafish larvae.

Conventionalized
Conventionally-raised
Phylum Family Operational taxonomic unit Mean (%) SEM (%) Prevelance (%) Mean (%) SEM (%) Prevelance (%)

No blast hit;Other 2.69 0.39 100 2.22 0.19 100
Actinobacteria Microbacteriaceae Family Microbacteriaceae 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 25
Mycobacteriaceae Mycobacterium sp. 0.00 0.00 0 0.02 0.01 100
Bifidobacteriaceae Bifidobacterium sp. 0.02 0.02 25 0.00 0.00 0
unclassified Order Solirubrobacterales 1.82 0.19 100 1.08 0.05 100
Bacteroidetes unclassified Order Bacteroidales 0.46 0.16 100 0.13 0.03 100
Bacteroidaceae Bacteroides sp. 0.29 0.26 50 0.31 0.12 100
Bacteroides acidifaciens 0.03 0.03 25 0.01 0.01 50
Porphyromonadaceae Parabacteroides sp. 0.25 0.22 50 0.04 0.02 75
Prevotellaceae Family Prevotellaceae 0.05 0.03 50 0.06 0.04 50
Prevotella sp. 0.00 0.00 0 0.01 0.01 25
Rikenellaceae Family Rikenellaceae 0.15 0.06 75 0.02 0.01 75
S24-7 Family S24-7 1.10 0.91 100 0.14 0.05 100
Barnesiellaceae Family Barnesiellaceae 0.02 0.02 25 0.01 0.00 50
Paraprevotellaceae YRC22 sp. 0.00 0.00 0 0.01 0.01 25
Cytophagaceae Family Cytophagaceae 0.07 0.04 50 5.05 0.09 100
Emticicia sp. 0.00 0.00 0 0.13 0.02 100
Flectobacillus sp. 0.00 0.00 0 3.19 0.13 100
Hymenobacter sp. 0.00 0.00 0 0.72 0.05 100
Runella sp. 0.00 0.00 0 2.22 0.12 100
Spirosoma sp. 0.00 0.00 0 0.20 0.03 100
Cryomorphaceae Fluviicola sp. 0.00 0.00 0 0.05 0.01 100
Flavobacteriaceae Flavobacterium sp. 0.03 0.03 25 1.05 0.06 100
Flavobacterium columnare 0.08 0.03 75 0.01 0.01 25
Weeksellaceae Chryseobacterium sp. 0.00 0.00 0 0.63 0.10 100
unclassified Order Sphingobacteriales 0.15 0.06 75 2.28 0.12 100
Sphingobacteriaceae Pedobacter sp. 0.21 0.07 100 1.20 0.09 100
Sphingobacterium multivorum 0.00 0.00 0 17.50 0.53 100
Chitinophagaceae Family Chitinophagaceae 0.00 0.00 0 0.04 0.02 100
Sediminibacterium sp. 0.06 0.03 50 0.01 0.01 25
Saprospiraceae Family Saprospiraceae 0.00 0.00 0 0.71 0.07 100
Saprospira sp. 0.00 0.00 0 0.14 0.03 100
Chloroflexi SHA-31 Family SHA-31 0.00 0.00 0 0.11 0.01 100
Cyanobacteria unclassified Order YS2 0.02 0.02 25 0.00 0.00 0
Order Stramenopiles 12.56 1.22 100 8.96 0.49 100
Deferribacteres Deferribacteraceae Mucispirillum schaedleri 0.05 0.05 25 0.01 0.01 25
Firmicutes Staphylococcaceae Staphylococcus succinus 0.03 0.03 25 0.00 0.00 0
Lactobacillaceae Lactobacillus sp. 0.03 0.03 25 0.01 0.01 25
Turicibacteraceae Turicibacter sp. 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 25
unclassified Order Clostridiales 0.31 0.20 75 0.27 0.05 100
Clostridiaceae Family Clostridiaceae 0.02 0.02 25 0.00 0.00 0
Clostridium sp. 0.10 0.10 25 0.04 0.02 50
Dehalobacteriaceae Dehalobacterium sp. 0.03 0.03 25 0.00 0.00 25
Lachnospiraceae Family Lachnospiraceae 0.10 0.04 75 0.07 0.01 100
Coprococcus sp. 0.04 0.04 25 0.02 0.01 50
Coprococcus eutactus 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 25
Roseburia sp. 0.00 0.00 0 0.01 0.01 50
Ruminococcus gnavus 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 25
Peptococcaceae Family Peptococcaceae 0.03 0.03 25 0.00 0.00 0
rc4-4 sp. 0.02 0.02 25 0.00 0.00 25
Peptostreptococcaceae Family Peptostreptococcaceae 0.02 0.02 25 0.00 0.00 0
Ruminococcaceae Family Ruminococcaceae 0.18 0.07 75 0.19 0.04 100
Oscillospira sp. 0.25 0.09 75 0.08 0.02 100
Ruminococcus sp. 0.00 0.00 0 0.03 0.01 75
Ruminococcus flavefaciens 0.05 0.03 50 0.00 0.00 0
Erysipelotrichaceae Family Erysipelotrichaceae 0.04 0.04 25 0.00 0.00 0
Allobaculum sp. 0.09 0.09 25 0.00 0.00 25
Proteobacteria Caulobacteraceae Family Caulobacteraceae 1.15 0.25 100 0.14 0.01 100
Asticcacaulis sp. 0.00 0.00 0 0.19 0.02 100
unclassified Order RF32 0.14 0.14 25 0.01 0.00 50
Order Rhizobiales 0.02 0.02 25 0.02 0.00 100
Aurantimonadaceae Family Aurantimonadaceae 0.00 0.00 0 0.08 0.01 100
Bradyrhizobiaceae Bosea genosp. 0.03 0.03 25 0.01 0.01 50
Hyphomicrobiaceae Hyphomicrobium sp. 0.02 0.02 25 0.03 0.01 75
Phyllobacteriaceae Family Phyllobacteriaceae 0.03 0.03 25 0.04 0.01 100
Rhizobiaceae Agrobacterium sp. 0.09 0.06 50 0.05 0.01 100
Hyphomonadaceae Family Hyphomonadaceae 0.00 0.00 0 0.16 0.02 100
Rhodobacteraceae Paracoccus aminovorans 0.00 0.00 0 0.02 0.01 50
Rhodobacter sp. 0.03 0.03 25 0.01 0.01 25
Rhodospirillaceae Family Rhodospirillaceae 0.00 0.00 0 0.11 0.01 100
Phaeospirillum fulvum 0.00 0.00 0 0.07 0.02 100
unclassified Order Rickettsiales 1.00 0.14 100 0.73 0.10 100
Rickettsiaceae Family Rickettsiaceae 0.22 0.05 100 0.36 0.04 100
mitochondria Vermamoeba vermiformis 0.00 0.00 0 0.01 0.01 50
Sphingomonadaceae Novosphingobium sp. 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 25
Sphingomonas sp. 0.30 0.06 100 0.06 0.03 100
Sphingomonas yabuuchiae 0.00 0.00 0 0.16 0.04 100
Class Betaproteobacteria 0.14 0.06 75 0.10 0.03 100
Alcaligenaceae Sutterella sp. 0.08 0.08 25 0.04 0.01 100
Comamonadaceae Family Comamonadaceae 2.21 0.19 100 22.21 0.38 100
Comamonas sp. 0.05 0.03 50 0.15 0.02 100
Limnohabitans sp. 1.77 0.42 100 6.53 0.08 100
Variovorax paradoxus 0.13 0.05 75 0.07 0.03 100
Oxalobacteraceae Family Oxalobacteraceae 0.00 0.00 0 0.19 0.02 100
Janthinobacterium sp. 0.00 0.00 0 0.01 0.01 25
Methylophilaceae Methylotenera mobilis 0.13 0.01 100 0.02 0.01 75
Rhodocyclaceae Family Rhodocyclaceae 4.47 0.26 100 3.16 0.13 100
Bdellovibrionaceae Bdellovibrio sp. 0.00 0.00 0 0.25 0.03 100
Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus 1.59 0.13 100 0.43 0.03 100
unclassified Order Myxococcales 0.00 0.00 0 0.03 0.01 75
Helicobacteraceae Family Helicobacteraceae 0.03 0.03 25 0.00 0.00 0
Alteromonadaceae Cellvibrio sp. 0.00 0.00 0 2.83 0.18 100
Chromatiaceae Rheinheimera sp. 61.49 1.07 100 8.57 0.36 100
Coxiellaceae Family Coxiellaceae 0.00 0.00 0 0.01 0.01 50
Legionellaceae Legionella sp. 0.08 0.03 75 0.01 0.01 50
Moraxellaceae Family Moraxellaceae 0.00 0.00 0 0.03 0.01 100
Pseudomonadaceae Pseudomonas sp. 0.40 0.14 100 0.00 0.00 0
Pseudomonas pseudoalcaligenes 0.00 0.00 0 0.04 0.00 100
Sinobacteraceae Family Sinobacteraceae 1.83 0.26 100 0.69 0.05 100
Nevskia ramosa 0.83 0.17 100 2.71 0.12 100
Xanthomonadaceae Stenotrophomonas sp. 0.02 0.02 25 0.01 0.00 50
Spirochaetes Spirochaetaceae Treponema sp. 0.00 0.00 0 0.01 0.01 25
Synergistetes Dethiosulfovibrionaceae Family Dethiosulfovibrionaceae 0.00 0.00 0 0.01 0.01 25
TM6 unclassified Class SBRH58 0.04 0.04 25 0.30 0.04 100
TM7 F16 Family F16 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 25
Tenericutes Anaeroplasmataceae Anaeroplasma sp. 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 25
unclassified Order RF39 0.00 0.00 0 0.02 0.00 100
Verrucomicrobia unclassified Order HA64 0.00 0.00 0 0.01 0.01 25
Opitutaceae Family Opitutaceae 0.00 0.00 0 0.09 0.02 100
RFP12 Family RFP12 0.00 0.00 0 0.02 0.02 25
Verrucomicrobiaceae Akkermansia muciniphila 0.20 0.20 25 0.09 0.05 75
Thermi Deinococcaceae Deinococcus sp. 0.03 0.03 25 0.11 0.02 100

2. Experimental design, materials and methods

2.1. Production of conventionalized and conventionally-raised zebrafish larvae

Wild-type zebrafish breeders were placed into a breeding tank overnight to spawn. Embryos were collected immediately after fertilization and evenly divided into separate groups for subsequent treatment. Conventionalized (CV) embryos were generated by following a previously published method [2]. Briefly, embryos were collected in sterile fish water containing 250 mg/mL amphotericin B, 5 µg/mL kanamycin, and 100 µg/mL ampicillin (AB-fish water). After sorting to remove unfertilized embryos, viable embryos were transferred to a tissue culture hood and gently washed 3 times in AB-fish water. Embryos were immersed in 0.1% PVP-Iodine solution for 2 min, and then immediately washed 3 times with sterile fish water. After washing, the embryos were immersed in 0.003% bleach solution for 1 h before being washed an additional 3 times with sterile fish water. Finally, the embryos were transferred into sterile tissue culture flasks containing conventional fish water. Conventionally raised (CR) embryos were transferred and maintained in conventional fish water immediately after collection without undergoing the sterilization process. All zebrafish embryos were maintained in a 28.5 °C incubator and raised at a density of ~1 embryo/mL until larval stage at 6 days postfertilization (dpf).

2.2. Microbial DNA extraction and quantification

Microbial DNA was extracted according to a modified previously published protocol [3]. Immediately following euthanasia, 12 zebrafish larvae were aseptically collected into 800 µL of lysis buffer (500 mM NaCl, 50 mM Tris–HCl, 50 mM EDTA, and 4% SDS), homogenized for 3 min in a Qiagen Tissuelyser II, and incubated at 70 °C for 20 min. Following centrifugation at 5000× g for 5 min at room temperature, the supernatant was mixed with 200 µL of 10 mM ammonium acetate, incubated on ice for 5 min, and then centrifuged at 16,000× g for 10 min at room temperature. 750 µL of supernatant was then mixed with an equal volume of chilled isopropanol, and incubated for 30 min on ice. The contents of the tube were then centrifuged at 16,000× g at 4 °C for 15 min to pellet DNA. The pellet was rinsed twice with 70% EtOH and re-suspended in 150 µL of tris-EDTA. 15 µL of proteinase-K and 200 µL of buffer AL (DNeasy kit, Qiagen, Valencia, CA) were then added and tubes were incubated at 70 °C for 10 min. 200 µL of 100% EtOH was then added and the entire contents of the tube were transferred to a Qiagen spin column before continuing with the manufacturer׳s instructions for DNA purification (DNeasy Kit, Qiagen). DNA was eluted in 50 µL of EB buffer (Qiagen). Yield of double-stranded DNA was determined via fluorometry (Qubit 2.0, Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA) using Qubit® dsDNA BR assay kits (Life Technologies).

2.3. Metagenomic library preparation and sequencing

Sequencing of the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene was performed on the Illumina MiSeq platform. Bacterial 16S rRNA amplicons were constructed by amplification of the V4 hypervariable region of the 16S rRNA gene with single-indexed primers flanked by Illumina standard adapter sequences. Universal primers (U515F/806R) previously developed against the V4 region were used for generating amplicons. Oligonucleotide sequences were obtained at proBase. A single forward primer and reverse primers with unique 12-base indices were used in all reactions. PCR reactions (50 µL) contained 100 ng of genomic DNA, forward and reverse primers (0.2 µM each), dNTPs (200 µM each), and Phusion High-Fidelity DNA Polymerase (1U). PCR amplification was performed as follows: amplification at 98 °C for 3 min, and 25 cycles at 98 °C for denaturation for 15 s, annealing at 50 °C for 30 s, and extension at 72 °C for 30 s, then a final extension at 72 °C for 7 min. Amplified product (5 µL) from each reaction was combined and thoroughly mixed; pooled amplicons were purified by addition of Axygen AxyPrep MagPCR Clean-up beads (50 µL) to an equal volume of 50 µL of amplicons and incubated at room temperature for 15 min. Products were washed multiple times with 80% EtOH and the dried pellet resuspended in Qiagen EB Buffer (32.5 µL), incubated at room temperature for 2 min, and then placed on a magnetic stand for 5 min. Supernatant (30 µL) was transferred to a low-binding microcentrifuge tube for storage. The final amplicon pool was evaluated using the Advanced Analytical Fragment Analyzer automated electrophoresis system, quantified with the Qubit flourometer using the quant-iT HS dsDNA reagent kit, and diluted according to the manufacturer׳s protocol.

2.4. Bioinformatics analysis

Assembly, binning, and annotation of DNA sequences were performed at the MU Informatics Research Core Facility (IRCF, Columbia, MO). Briefly, contiguous sequences of DNA were assembled using FLASH software [4] and contigs were culled if found to be short after trimming for a base quality less than 31. Qiime v1.7 [5] software was used to perform de novo and reference-based chimera detection and removal, and remaining contigs were assigned to operational taxonomic units (OTUs) using a criterion of 97% nucleotide identity. Taxonomy was assigned to selected OTUs using BLAST [6] against the Greengenes database [7] of 16S rRNA sequences and taxonomy.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Holly M. Doerr, Julia E. Karpinski, and Agata K. Grzelak for assistance with experimental procedures, and Miriam Hankins for assistance with animal husbandry. We would also like to thank Bill Spollen and the MU Informatics Research Core Facility (IRCF) for help with Bioinformatics analysis.

Footnotes

Transparency document

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.dib.2016.06.057.

Transparency document. Supplementary material

Supplementary material

mmc1.docx (20KB, docx)

References

  • 1.Davis D.J., Bryda E.C., Gillespie C.H., Ericsson A.C. Microbial modulation of behavior and stress responses in zebrafish larvae. Behav. Brain Res. 2016;311:219–227. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2016.05.040. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pham L.N., Kanther M., Semova I., Rawls J.F. Methods for generating and colonizing gnotobiotic zebrafish. Nat. Protoc. 2008;3:1862–1875. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2008.186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hart M.L., Meyer A., Johnson P.J., Ericsson A.C. Comparative evaluation of DNA extraction methods from feces of multiple host species for downstream next-generation sequencing. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0143334. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Magoc T., Salzberg S.L. FLASH: fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:2957–2963. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr507. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kuczynski J., Stombaugh J., Walters W.A., Gonzalez A., Caporaso J.G., Knight R. Using QIIME to analyze 16S rRNA gene sequences from microbial communities. Curr. Protoc. Microbiol. 2012 doi: 10.1002/9780471729259.mc01e05s27. (Chapter 1:Unit 1E 5) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Altschul S.F., Madden T.L., Schaffer A.A., Zhang J., Zhang Z., Miller W. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucl. Acids Res. 1997;25:3389–3402. doi: 10.1093/nar/25.17.3389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.DeSantis T.Z., Hugenholtz P., Larsen N., Rojas M., Brodie E.L., Keller K. Greengenes, a chimera-checked 16S rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006;72:5069–5072. doi: 10.1128/AEM.03006-05. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary material

mmc1.docx (20KB, docx)

Articles from Data in Brief are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES