Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Diversity within species: interpreting strains in microbiomes

Nature Reviews Microbiology volume 18, pages 491–506 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Studying within-species variation has traditionally been limited to culturable bacterial isolates and low-resolution microbial community fingerprinting. Metagenomic sequencing and technical advances have enabled culture-free, high-resolution strain and subspecies analyses at high throughput and in complex environments. This holds great scientific promise but has also led to an overwhelming number of methods and terms to describe infraspecific variation. This Review aims to clarify these advances by focusing on the diversity within bacterial and archaeal species in the context of microbiomics. We cover foundational microevolutionary concepts relevant to population genetics and summarize how within-species variation can be studied and stratified directly within microbial communities with a focus on metagenomics. Finally, we describe how common applications of within-species variation can be achieved using metagenomic data. We aim to guide the selection of appropriate terms and analytical approaches to facilitate researchers in benefiting from the increasing availability of large, high-resolution microbiome genetic sequencing data.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Drivers of variability within bacterial species.
Fig. 2: Within-species stratification.
Fig. 3: Applications of within-species variation.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wayne, L. G. et al. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Reconciliation of Approaches to Bacterial Systematics. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 37, 463–464 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Leimbach, A., Hacker, J. & Dobrindt, U. E. coli as an all-rounder: the thin line between commensalism and pathogenicity. Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol. 358, 3–32 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pierce, J. V. & Bernstein, H. D. Genomic diversity of enterotoxigenic strains of bacteroides fragilis. PLoS One 11, e0158171 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Maier, L. et al. Extensive impact of non-antibiotic drugs on human gut bacteria. Nature 555, 623–628 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Neuenschwander, S. M., Ghai, R., Pernthaler, J. & Salcher, M. M. Microdiversification in genome-streamlined ubiquitous freshwater Actinobacteria. ISME J. 12, 185–198 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Triplett, E. & Sadowsky, M. J. Genetics of competition for nodulation of legumes. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 46, 399–428 (1992).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nowrouzian, F. L., Adlerberth, I. & Wold, A. E. Enhanced persistence in the colonic microbiota of Escherichia coli strains belonging to phylogenetic group B2: role of virulence factors and adherence to colonic cells. Microbes Infect. 8, 834–840 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Whitman, W. B. & Bergey’s Manual Trust. Bergey’s Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria (Wiley, 2015).

  9. Zhao, S. et al. Adaptive evolution within gut microbiomes of healthy people. Cell Host Microbe 25, 656–667 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Lagier, J.-C. et al. Culturing the human microbiota and culturomics. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 16, 540–550 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tyson, G. W. et al. Community structure and metabolism through reconstruction of microbial genomes from the environment. Nature 428, 37–43 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Allen, E. E. et al. Genome dynamics in a natural archaeal population. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 1883–1888 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Eppley, J. M., Tyson, G. W., Getz, W. M. & Banfield, J. F. Genetic exchange across a species boundary in the archaeal genus ferroplasma. Genetics 177, 407–16 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Eppley, J. M., Tyson, G. W., Getz, W. M. & Banfield, J. F. Strainer: software for analysis of population variation in community genomic datasets. BMC Bioinformatics 8, 398 (2007).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Lo, I. et al. Strain-resolved community proteomics reveals recombining genomes of acidophilic bacteria. Nature 446, 537–541 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Denef, V. J. et al. Proteogenomic basis for ecological divergence of closely related bacteria in natural acidophilic microbial communities. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 2383–2390 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Segata, N. On the road to strain-resolved comparative metagenomics. mSystems 3, e00190-17 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Suez, J., Zmora, N., Segal, E. & Elinav, E. The pros, cons, and many unknowns of probiotics. Nat. Med. 25, 716–729 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Denef, V. J. in Population Genomics: Microorganisms (eds Polz, M., Rajora, O.) 49–75 (Springer, 2018). Comprehensive review on the application of metagenomic approaches for microbial population genomics.

  20. Bobay, L.-M. & Raymann, K. Population genetics of host-associated microbiomes. Curr. Mol. Biol. Rep. 5, 128–139 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dijkshoorn, L., Ursing, B. M. & Ursing, J. B. Strain, clone and species: comments on three basic concepts of bacteriology. J. Med. Microbiol. 49, 397–401 (2000). Compares and summarises definitions of key terminology in a bacteriological (isolate-based) context.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Brown, T. Genomes 2nd edn (Wiley-Liss, 2002).

  23. Alberts, B. et al. Molecular Biology of the Cell (Garland Science, 2002).

  24. Fijalkowska, I. J., Schaaper, R. M. & Jonczyk, P. DNA replication fidelity in Escherichia coli: a multi-DNA polymerase affair. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 36, 1105–21 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Denamur, E. & Matic, I. Evolution of mutation rates in bacteria. Mol. Microbiol. 60, 820–827 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Dillon, M. M., Sung, W., Sebra, R., Lynch, M. & Cooper, V. S. Genome-wide biases in the rate and molecular spectrum of spontaneous mutations in Vibrio cholerae and Vibrio fischeri. Mol. Biol. Evol. 34, 93–109 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Strauss, C., Long, H., Patterson, C. E., Te, R. & Lynch, M. Genome-wide mutation rate response to pH change in the Coral Reef Pathogen Vibrio shilonii AK1. mBio 8, e01021-17 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Cooper, V. S., Vohr, S. H., Wrocklage, S. C. & Hatcher, P. J. Why genes evolve faster on secondary chromosomes in bacteria. PLoS Comput. Biol. 6, e1000732 (2010).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Bobay, L.-M., Traverse, C. C. & Ochman, H. Impermanence of bacterial clones. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 8893–8900 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Andersson, J. O. & Andersson, S. G. E. Pseudogenes, junk DNA, and the dynamics of Rickettsia Genomes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18, 829–839 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mira, A., Ochman, H. & Moran, N. A. Deletional bias and the evolution of bacterial genomes. Trends Genet. 17, 589–96 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lawrence, J. G. & Retchless, A. C. The interplay of homologous recombination and horizontal gene transfer in bacterial speciation. Methods Mol. Biol. 532, 29–53 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lerner, A., Matthias, T. & Aminov, R. Potential effects of horizontal gene exchange in the human gut. Front. Immunol. 8, 1630 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Thomas, C. M. & Nielsen, K. M. Mechanisms of, and barriers to, horizontal gene transfer between bacteria. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 3, 711–721 (2005). Reviews the major concepts and mechanisms of HGT and their implications for genome flux across populations.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rocha, E. P., Cornet, E. & Michel, B. Comparative and evolutionary analysis of the bacterial homologous recombination systems. PLoS Genet. 1, e15 (2005).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Fraser, C., Hanage, W. P. & Spratt, B. G. Recombination and the nature of bacterial speciation. Science 315, 476–480 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Gasiunas, G., Sinkunas, T. & Siksnys, V. Molecular mechanisms of CRISPR-mediated microbial immunity. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 71, 449–465 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Brouwer, M. S. M. et al. Horizontal gene transfer converts non-toxigenic Clostridium difficile strains into toxin producers. Nat. Commun. 4, 2601 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kaper, J. B. & O’Brien, A. D. Overview and historical perspectives. Microbiol. Spectr. 2 https://doi.org/10.1128/microbiolspec.EHEC-0028-2014 (2014).

  40. Hallatschek, O., Hersen, P., Ramanathan, S. & Nelson, D. R. Genetic drift at expanding frontiers promotes gene segregation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 19926–19930 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Nemergut, D. R. et al. Patterns and processes of microbial community assembly. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 77, 342–356 (2013).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Chun, J. et al. Proposed minimal standards for the use of genome data for the taxonomy of prokaryotes. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 68, 461–466 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Ford Doolittle, W. Population genomics: how bacterial species form and why they don’t exist. Curr. Biol. 22, R451–R453 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes. International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes: Prokaryotic Code (2008 Revision). Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 69, S1–S111 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Croxen, M. A. et al. Recent advances in understanding enteric pathogenic Escherichia coli. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 26, 822–880 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Konstantinidis, K. T. & Tiedje, J. M. Genomic insights that advance the species definition for prokaryotes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 2567–2572 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Richter, M. & Rosselló-Móra, R. Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 19126–19131 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Mende, D. R., Sunagawa, S., Zeller, G. & Bork, P. Accurate and universal delineation of prokaryotic species. Nat. Methods 10, 881–884 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Goris, J. et al. DNA-DNA hybridization values and their relationship to whole-genome sequence similarities. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 57, 81–91 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Dzink, J. L., Sheenan, M. T. & Socransky, S. S. Proposal of three subspecies of Fusobacterium nucleaturn Knorr 1922: Fusobacterium nucleatum subsp. nucleatum subsp. nov., comb. nov.; Fusobacterium nucleatum subsp. polymorphum subsp. nov., norn. rev., comb. nov.; and Fusobacterium nucleatum subsp. vincentii subsp. nov., norn. rev., comb. nov. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 40, 74–78 (1990).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kook, J. K. et al. Genome-based reclassification of Fusobacterium nucleatum subspecies at the species level. Curr. Microbiol. 74, 1137–1147 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Konstantinidis, K. T. & Delong, E. F. Genomic patterns of recombination clonal divergence and environment in marine microbial populations. ISME J. 2, 1052–1065 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Caro-Quintero, A. & Konstantinidis, K. T. Bacterial species may exist, metagenomics reveal. Environ. Microbiol. 14, 347–355 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Jain, C., Rodriguez-R, L. M., Phillippy, A. M., Konstantinidis, K. T. & Aluru, S. High throughput ANI analysis of 90K prokaryotic genomes reveals clear species boundaries. Nat. Commun. 9, 5114 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Olm, M. R. et al. Consistent metagenome-derived metrics verify and delineate bacterial species boundaries. mSystems 5, e00731-19 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Milanese, A. et al. Microbial abundance, activity and population genomic profiling with mOTUs2. Nat. Commun. 10, 1014 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Mayden, R. L. in Species. The Units of Biodiversity (eds Claridge, M. F., Dawah, H. A. & Wilson, M. R.) 381–423 (Chapman & Hall, 1997).

  58. Wilkins, J. S. How to be a chaste species pluralist-realist: the origins of species modes and the synapomorphic species concept. Biol. Philos. 18, 621–638 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Hey, J. The mind of the species problem. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 326–329 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Bapteste, E. et al. Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things. Biol. Direct. 4, 34 (2009).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Konstantinidis, K. T., Ramette, A. & Tiedje, J. M. The bacterial species definition in the genomic era. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 361, 1929–1940 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Bobay, L.-M. & Ochman, H. Biological species are universal across life’s domains. Genome Biol. Evol. 9, 491–501 (2017).

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Moldovan, M. A. & Gelfand, M. S. Pangenomic definition of prokaryotic species and the phylogenetic structure of Prochlorococcus spp. Front. Microbiol. 9, 428 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Snel, B., Bork, P. & Huynen, M. A. Genome phylogeny based on gene content. Nat. Genet. 21, 108–110 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Achtman, M. & Wagner, M. Microbial diversity and the genetic nature of microbial species. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 6, 431–440 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Barton, N. H. The effect of hitch-hiking on neutral genealogies. Genet. Res. 72, 123–133 (1998).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Hermisson, J. & Pennings, P. S. Soft sweeps and beyond: understanding the patterns and probabilities of selection footprints under rapid adaptation. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 700–716 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Shapiro, B. J. et al. Population genomics of early events in the ecological differentiation of bacteria. Science 336, 48–51 (2012). Demonstrates that gene-specific selective sweeps followed by gradually decreasing gene flow can lead to ecologically differentiated conspecific subpopulations.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Cohan, F. M. Bacterial species and speciation. Syst. Biol. 50, 513–524 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Cohan, F. M. in Selective Sweep (ed. Nurminsky, D.) 78–93 (Springer, 2007).

  71. Charlesworth, B. Effective population size and patterns of molecular evolution and variation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10, 195–205 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Cohan, F. M. M. Bacterial speciation: genetic sweeps in bacterial species. Curr. Biol. 26, R112–R115 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Hermisson, J. & Pennings, P. S. Soft sweeps: molecular population genetics of adaptation from standing genetic variation. Genetics 169, 2335–2352 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. González-Torres, P., Rodríguez-Mateos, F., Antón, J., Gabaldón, T. & Heitman, J. Impact of homologous recombination on the evolution of prokaryotic core genomes. mBio 10, e02494-18 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Monroe, B. A modern concept of the subspecies. Auk 99, 608–609 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Costea, P. et al. Subspecies in the global human gut microbiome. Mol. Syst. Biol. 13, 960–960 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Retchless, A. C. & Lawrence, J. G. Temporal fragmentation of speciation in bacteria. Science 317, 1093–1096 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Shapiro, B. J. in Population Genomics: Microorganisms (eds Polz, M. F. & Rajora,O. P.) 31–47 (Springer Nature, 2018).

  79. Sheppard, S. K., Guttman, D. S. & Fitzgerald, J. R. Population genomics of bacterial host adaptation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 19, 549–565 (2018). An extensive review about the origins of genetic population structure in Prokaryotes and how to study it in context of host–microbiome interactions and adaptations.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Bobay, L.-M. & Ochman, H. Factors driving effective population size and pan-genome evolution in bacteria. BMC Evol. Biol. 18, 153 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Smelov, V. et al. Chlamydia trachomatis strain types have diversified regionally and globally with evidence for recombination across geographic divides. Front. Microbiol. 8, 2195 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Tenaillon, O., Skurnik, D., Picard, B. & Denamur, E. The population genetics of commensal Escherichia coli. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 8, 207–217 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Zeevi, D. et al. Structural variation in the gut microbiome associates with host health. Nature 568, 43–48 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Lloyd-Price, J. et al. Strains, functions and dynamics in the expanded human microbiome project. Nature 550, 61–66 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. De Filippis, F. et al. Distinct genetic and functional traits of human intestinal Prevotella copri strains are associated with different habitual diets. Cell Host Microbe 25, 444–453 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Ferretti, P. et al. Mother-to-infant microbial transmission from different body sites shapes the developing infant gut microbiome. Cell Host Microbe 24, 133–145 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Stewart, R. D. et al. Compendium of 4,941 rumen metagenome-assembled genomes for rumen microbiome biology and enzyme discovery. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 953–961 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Schmidt, T. S. et al. Extensive transmission of microbes along the gastrointestinal tract. eLife 8, e42693 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Asnicar, F. et al. Studying vertical microbiome transmission from mothers to infants by strain-level metagenomic profiling. mSystems 2, e00164-16 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Zmora, N. et al. Personalized gut mucosal colonization resistance to empiric probiotics is associated with unique host and microbiome features. Cell 174, 1388–1405 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Smillie, C. S. et al. Strain tracking reveals the determinants of bacterial engraftment in the human gut following fecal microbiota transplantation article strain tracking reveals the determinants of bacterial engraftment in the human gut following fecal microbiota transplanta. Cell Host Microbe 23, 229–240 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Zhou, Z., Luhmann, N., Alikhan, N. F., Quince, C. & Achtman, M. in Research in Computational Molecular Biology. RECOMB 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10812 (ed. Raphael, B.) 225–240 (Springer, 2018).

  93. Ahn, T.-H., Chai, J. & Pan, C. Sigma: strain-level inference of genomes from metagenomic analysis for biosurveillance. Bioinformatics 31, 170–177 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Hong, C. et al. PathoScope 2.0: a complete computational framework for strain identification in environmental or clinical sequencing samples. Microbiome 2, 33 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Ondov, B. D. et al. Mash: fast genome and metagenome distance estimation using MinHash. Genome Biol. 17, 132 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Scholz, M. et al. Strain-level microbial epidemiology and population genomics from shotgun metagenomics. Nat. Methods 13, 435–438 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Zhu, A., Sunagawa, S., Mende, D. R. & Bork, P. Inter-individual differences in the gene content of human gut bacterial species. Genome Biol. 16, 82 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Greenblum, S., Carr, R. & Borenstein, E. Extensive strain-level copy-number variation across human gut microbiome species. Cell 160, 583–594 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Quince, C. et al. DESMAN: a new tool for de novo extraction of strains from metagenomes. Genome Biol. 18, 181 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Maistrenko, O. M. et al. Disentangling the impact of environmental and phylogenetic constraints on prokaryotic within-species diversity. ISME J. 14, 1247–1259 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Andreani, N. A., Hesse, E. & Vos, M. Prokaryote genome fluidity is dependent on effective population size. ISME J. 11, 1719–1721 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. 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).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Bendall, M. L. et al. Genome-wide selective sweeps and gene-specific sweeps in natural bacterial populations. ISME J. 10, 1589–1601 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Nayfach, S., Rodriguez-Mueller, B., Garud, N. & Pollard, K. S. An integrated metagenomics pipeline for strain profiling reveals novel patterns of bacterial transmission and biogeography. Genome Res. 26, 1612–1625 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Costea, P. I. et al. metaSNV: a tool for metagenomic strain level analysis. PLoS One 12, e0182392 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Truong, D. T., Tett, A., Pasolli, E., Huttenhower, C. & Segata, N. Microbial strain-level population structure and genetic diversity from metagenomes. Genome Res. 27, 626–638 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Bush, S. J. et al. Genomic diversity affects the accuracy of bacterial single-nucleotide polymorphism–calling pipelines. Gigascience 9, giaa007 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Luo, C. et al. ConStrains identifies microbial strains in metagenomic datasets. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 1045–1052 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Delmont, T. O. et al. Single-amino acid variants reveal evolutionary processes that shape the biogeography of a global SAR11 subclade. eLife 8, e46497 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. Jackson, R. W. et al. Identification of a pathogenicity island, which contains genes for virulence and avirulence, on a large native plasmid in the bean pathogen Pseudomonas syringae pathovar phaseolicola. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 10875–10880 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Scholz, B. K., Jakobek, J. L. & Lindgren, P. B. Restriction fragment length polymorphism evidence for genetic homology within a pathovar of Pseudomonas syringae. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 60, 1093–1100 (1994).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. Pan, X. S., Yague, G. & Fisher, L. M. Quinolone resistance mutations in Streptococcus pneumoniae gyrA and parC proteins: mechanistic insights into quinolone action from enzymatic analysis, intracellular levels, and phenotypes of wild-type and mutant proteins. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 45, 3140–3147 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Forslund, K., Sunagawa, S., Coelho, L. P. & Bork, P. Metagenomic insights into the human gut resistome and the forces that shape it. BioEssays 36, 316–329 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Petkau, A. et al. SNVPhyl: a single nucleotide variant phylogenomics pipeline for microbial genomic epidemiology. Microb. Genom. 3, e000116 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. Jain, R., Rivera, M. C., Lake, J. A. & Lake, J. Horizontal gene transfer among genomes: the complexity hypothesis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 3801–3806 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Polz, M. F. & Rajora, O. P. (eds) Population Genomics: Microorganisms. (Springer, 2019).

  117. Zolfo, M., Tett, A., Jousson, O., Donati, C. & Segata, N. MetaMLST: multi-locus strain-level bacterial typing from metagenomic samples. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, e7 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Truong, D. T. et al. MetaPhlAn2 for enhanced metagenomic taxonomic profiling. Nat. Methods 12, 902–903 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Tamburini, F. B. et al. Precision identification of diverse bloodstream pathogens in the gut microbiome. Nat. Med. 24, 1809–1814 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. Albanese, D. & Donati, C. Strain profiling and epidemiology of bacterial species from metagenomic sequencing. Nat. Commun. 8, 2260 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  121. O’Brien, J. D. et al. A Bayesian approach to inferring the phylogenetic structure of communities from metagenomic data. Genetics 197, 925–37 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. Smillie, C. S. et al. Strain tracking reveals the determinants of bacterial engraftment in the human gut following fecal microbiota transplantation. Cell Host Microbe 23, 229–240 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. Sczyrba, A. et al. Critical assessment of metagenome interpretation - a benchmark of metagenomics software. Nat. Methods 14, 1063–1071 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Brenner, D. J., Staley, J. T. & Krieg, N. R. Classification of Procaryotic Organisms and the Concept of Bacterial Speciation. in Bergey’s Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria. 1–9 (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2015).

  125. Struelens, M. J. et al. Consensus guidelines for appropriate use and evaluation of microbial epidemiologic typing systems. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2, 2–11 (1996).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Spira, B., de Almeida Toledo, R., Maharjan, R. P. & Ferenci, T. The uncertain consequences of transferring bacterial strains between laboratories - rpoS instability as an example. BMC Microbiol. 11, 248 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. Kong, L. Y. et al. Clostridium difficile: investigating transmission patterns between infected and colonized patients using whole genome sequencing. Clin. Infect. Dis. 68, 204–209 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Saak, C. C. & Gibbs, K. A. The self-identity protein IdsD is communicated between cells in swarming proteus mirabilis colonies. J. Bacteriol. 198, 3278–3286 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. Brooks, B. et al. Strain-resolved analysis of hospital rooms and infants reveals overlap between the human and room microbiome. Nat. Commun. 8, 1814 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  130. Patten, M. A. Subspecies and the philosophy of science. Auk 132, 481–485 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  131. Meier-Kolthoff, J. P. et al. Complete genome sequence of DSM 30083(T), the type strain (U5/41(T)) of Escherichia coli, and a proposal for delineating subspecies in microbial taxonomy. Stand. Genomic Sci. 9, 2 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  132. Fukuyama, M. et al. Unification of Bifidobacterium infantis and Bifidobacterium suis as Bifidobacterium longum. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 52, 1945–1951 (2002).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Hahn, M. W., Schmidt, J., Pitt, A., Taipale, S. J. & Lang, E. Reclassification of four Polynucleobacter necessarius strains as representatives of Polynucleobacter asymbioticus comb. nov., Polynucleobacter duraquae sp. nov., Polynucleobacter yangtzensis sp. nov. and Polynucleobacter sinensis sp. nov., and emended description of Polynucleobacter necessarius. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 66, 2883–2892 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  134. Ackermann, M. A functional perspective on phenotypic heterogeneity in microorganisms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 13, 497–508 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Cornforth, D. M. et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa transcriptome during human infection. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E5125–E5134 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  136. González-Torres, P. et al. Interactions between closely related bacterial strains are revealed by deep transcriptome sequencing. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 81, 8445–8456 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  137. Ansorge, R. et al. Functional diversity enables multiple symbiont strains to coexist in deep-sea mussels. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 2487–2497 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Olm, M. R. et al. Identical bacterial populations colonize premature infant gut, skin, and oral microbiomes and exhibit different in situ growth rates. Genome Res. 27, 601–612 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  139. Pedrós-Alió, C. in Plankton Ecology (ed. Sommer, U.) 297–336 (Springer, 1989).

  140. Root, R. B. The niche exploitation pattern of the blue-gray gnatcatcher. Ecol. Monogr. 37, 317–350 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  141. Mateus, A. et al. Thermal proteome profiling in bacteria: probing protein state in vivo. Mol. Syst. Biol. 14, e8242 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  142. Land, M. et al. Insights from 20 years of bacterial genome sequencing. Funct. Integr. Genomics 15, 141–161 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  143. Gutleben, J. et al. The multi-omics promise in context: from sequence to microbial isolate. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 44, 212–229 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Lam, T. J. & Ye, Y. CRISPRs for strain tracking and their application to microbiota transplantation data analysis. Cris. J. 2, 41–50 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  145. Mu, A. et al. Reconstruction of the genomes of drug-resistant pathogens for outbreak investigation through metagenomic sequencing. mSphere 4, e00529-18 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  146. Didelot, X., Walker, A. S., Peto, T. E., Crook, D. W. & Wilson, D. J. Within-host evolution of bacterial pathogens. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 14, 150–162 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  147. Quince, C., Walker, A. W., Simpson, J. T., Loman, N. J. & Segata, N. Shotgun metagenomics, from sampling to analysis. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 833–844 (2017). Reviews how microbial communities can be studied using metagenomic sequencing, with comments on sources of bias and comparisons of analytical methods.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Koren, S. & Phillippy, A. M. One chromosome, one contig: complete microbial genomes from long-read sequencing and assembly. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 23, 110–120 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Somerville, V. et al. Long-read based de novo assembly of low-complexity metagenome samples results in finished genomes and reveals insights into strain diversity and an active phage system. BMC Microbiol. 19, 143 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  150. Jiang, X. et al. Dissemination of antibiotic resistance genes from antibiotic producers to pathogens. Nat. Commun. 8, 15784 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  151. Linz, B. et al. An African origin for the intimate association between humans and Helicobacter pylori. Nature 445, 915–918 (2007).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  152. Thorell, K. et al. Rapid evolution of distinct Helicobacter pylori subpopulations in the Americas. PLoS Genet. 13, e1006546 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  153. Gardy, J. L. et al. Whole-genome sequencing and social-network analysis of a tuberculosis outbreak. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 730–739 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Gregory, A. C. et al. Marine DNA viral macro- and microdiversity from pole to pole. Cell 177, 1109–1123 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  155. Arevalo, P., VanInsberghe, D., Elsherbini, J., Gore, J. & Polz, M. F. A reverse ecology approach based on a biological definition of microbial populations. Cell 178, 820–834 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. Garcia, S. L. et al. Contrasting patterns of genome-level diversity across distinct co-occurring bacterial populations. ISME J. 12, 742–755 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  157. Kopac, S. et al. Genomic heterogeneity and ecological speciation within one subspecies of Bacillus subtilis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 80, 4842–4853 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  158. Levy, R. & Borenstein, E. in Evolutionary Systems Biology Vol. 751 (ed. Soyer, O. S.) 329–345 (Springer, 2012).

  159. Burghardt, L. T. et al. Select and resequence reveals relative fitness of bacteria in symbiotic and free-living environments. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 2425–2430 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  160. Wang, J. & Jia, H. Metagenome-wide association studies: fine-mining the microbiome. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 14, 508–522 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  161. Knight, R. et al. Best practices for analysing microbiomes. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 16, 410–422 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  162. Song, W., Wemheuer, B., Zhang, S., Steensen, K. & Thomas, T. MetaCHIP: community-level horizontal gene transfer identification through the combination of best-match and phylogenetic approaches. Microbiome 7, 36 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  163. Seiler, E., Trappe, K. & Renard, B. Y. Where did you come from, where did you go: refining metagenomic analysis tools for horizontal gene transfer characterisation. PLoS Comput. Biol. 15, e1007208 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  164. Douglas, G. M. & Langille, M. G. I. Current and promising approaches to identify horizontal gene transfer events in metagenomes. Genome Biol. Evol. 11, 2750–2766 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  165. Cox, C. B., Moore, P. D. & Ladle, R. J. (eds) Biogeography: An Ecological and Evolutionary Approach. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2016).

  166. Arora, D., Singh, A., Sharma, V., Bhaduria, H. S. & Patel, R. B. HgsDb: haplogroups database to understand migration and molecular risk assessment. Bioinformation 11, 272–275 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  167. Cantino, P. & de Queiroz, K. PhyloCode: a phylogenetic code of biological nomenclature. PhyloCode. www.ohiou.edu/phylocode (2010).

  168. Tenover, F. C. et al. Interpreting chromosomal DNA restriction patterns produced by pulsed- field gel electrophoresis: criteria for bacterial strain typing. J. Clin. Microbiol. 33, 2233–2239 (1995).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  169. Schloter, M., Lebuhn, M., Heulin, T. & Hartmann, A. Ecology and evolution of bacterial microdiversity. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 24, 647–660 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  170. Hamilton, M. Population Genetics (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009).

  171. Cohan, F. M. Transmission in the origins of bacterial diversity, from ecotypes to Phyla. Microbiol. Spectr. 5, https://doi.org/10.1128/microbiolspec.MTBP-0014-2016 (2017).

  172. Alkan, C., Coe, B. P. & Eichler, E. E. Genome structural variation discovery and genotyping. Nat. Rev. Genet. 12, 363–376 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  173. Kaper, J. B., Nataro, J. P. & Mobley, H. L. T. Pathogenic Escherichia coli. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2, 123–140 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  174. Samuel, B. Medical Microbiology (Univ. of Texas Medical Branch, 1996).

  175. Kenneth, R., George, R. & Sherris, J. C. (eds) Medical Microbiology: An Introduction to Infectious Diseases (McGraw-Hill Medical, 2004).

  176. Houghton Mifflin Company. The American Heritage Medical Dictionary - Serovar. (Houghton Mifflin, 2007).

  177. Silva, N. A. et al. Genomic diversity between strains of the same serotype and multilocus sequence type among pneumococcal clinical isolates. Infect. Immun. 74, 3513–3518 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  178. Fratamico, P. M. et al. Advances in molecular serotyping and subtyping of Escherichia coli. Front. Microbiol. 7, 644 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  179. Miller-Keane & Marie, O. Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health 7th edn. (W. B. Saunders, 2003).

  180. diCenzo, G. C. & Finan, T. M. The divided bacterial genome: structure, function, and evolution. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 81, e00019-17 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  181. Hamady, M. & Knight, R. Microbial community profiling for human microbiome projects: Tools, techniques, and challenges. Genome Res. 19, 1141–1152 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  182. Nocker, A., Burr, M. & Camper, A. K. Genotypic microbial community profiling: a critical technical review. Microb. Ecol. 54, 276–289 (2007). Reviews foundational methods that enabled microbial diversity to be assessed directly within a microbial community, sometimes at within-species resolution.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  183. Eren, A. M., Borisy, G. G., Huse, S. M. & Mark Welch, J. L. Oligotyping analysis of the human oral microbiome. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, E2875–E2884 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  184. Eren, A. M. et al. Minimum entropy decomposition: unsupervised oligotyping for sensitive partitioning of high-throughput marker gene sequences. ISME J. 9, 968–979 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  185. Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: high-resolution sample inference from illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  186. Amir, A. et al. Deblur rapidly resolves single-nucleotide community sequence patterns. mSystems 2, e00191-16 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  187. Tikhonov, M., Leach, R. W. & Wingreen, N. S. Interpreting 16 S metagenomic data without clustering to achieve sub-OTU resolution. ISME J. 9, 68–80 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  188. Johnson, J. S. et al. Evaluation of 16S rRNA gene sequencing for species and strain-level microbiome analysis. Nat. Commun. 10, 5029 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  189. Nielsen, H. B. et al. Identification and assembly of genomes and genetic elements in complex metagenomic samples without using reference genomes. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 822–828 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  190. Yu, F. B. et al. Microfluidic-based mini-metagenomics enables discovery of novel microbial lineages from complex environmental samples. eLife 6, e26580 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  191. Shi, X. et al. Microfluidics-based enrichment and whole-genome amplification enable strain-level resolution for airway metagenomics. mSystems 4, e00198-19 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  192. Bowers, R. M. et al. Minimum information about a single amplified genome (MISAG) and a metagenome-assembled genome (MIMAG) of bacteria and archaea. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 725–731 (2017). Establishes minimal quality reporting requirements for MAGs.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  193. Almeida, A. et al. A new genomic blueprint of the human gut microbiota. Nature 568, 499–504 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  194. Beitel, C. W. et al. Strain- and plasmid-level deconvolution of a synthetic metagenome by sequencing proximity ligation products. PeerJ 2, e415 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  195. Costea, P. I. et al. Towards standards for human fecal sample processing in metagenomic studies. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 1069–1076 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  196. Shaiber, A. & Eren, A. M. Composite metagenome-assembled genomes reduce the quality of public genome repositories. mBio https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00725-19 (2019). Provides an example of how assembling genomes from metagenomes (creating MAGs) can lead to poor quality genomic data and why these genomes should not be considered the same as genomes from isolates.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  197. Schmidt, T. S. B., Raes, J. & Bork, P. The human gut microbiome: from association to modulation. Cell 172, 1198–1215 (2018). Reviews the known connections between human gut microbiome and health, including discussion of strain-level variation.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  198. Salter, S. J. et al. Reagent and laboratory contamination can critically impact sequence-based microbiome analyses. BMC Biol. 12, 87 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  199. Goldstein, S., Beka, L., Graf, J. & Klassen, J. L. Evaluation of strategies for the assembly of diverse bacterial genomes using MinION long-read sequencing. BMC Genomics 20, 23 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  200. Alneberg, J. et al. Genomes from uncultivated prokaryotes: a comparison of metagenome-assembled and single-amplified genomes. Microbiome 6, 173 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  201. Gawad, C., Koh, W. & Quake, S. R. Single-cell genome sequencing: current state of the science. Nat. Rev. Genet. 17, 175–188 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding for research in the authors’ laboratories was provided by the European Research Council (ERC) (grant ERC-AdG-669830 MicrobioS), the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (grant 825694 MICROB-PREDICT), the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, BMBF) (grant 01GL1746B PRIMAL) and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Structural and Computational Biology Unit, Heidelberg, Germany

    Thea Van Rossum, Pamela Ferretti, Oleksandr M. Maistrenko & Peer Bork

  2. Max Delbrück Centre for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany

    Peer Bork

  3. Molecular Medicine Partnership Unit, University of Heidelberg and European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany

    Peer Bork

  4. Department of Bioinformatics, Biocenter, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

    Peer Bork

Authors
  1. Thea Van Rossum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pamela Ferretti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oleksandr M. Maistrenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peer Bork
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors contributed equally to all aspects of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peer Bork.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Microbiology thanks C. Quince and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Glossary

Conspecific

Belonging to the same species; for example, conspecific strains are strains that belong to the same species.

Metagenomics

The study of all genomes present in a sample from a microbial community. Often performed as shotgun metagenomics, in which extracted DNA is fragmented before sequencing.

Population

A set of individuals who occupy a particular spatial area.

Mutator allele

Genetic variation (allele) that results in an increased mutation rate.

Genetic drift

Change of allele frequencies in a population caused by stochastic factors.

Horizontal gene transfer

(HGT). The movement of genetic information between organisms, in contrast to vertical gene transfer from parent to offspring.

Homologous recombination

(HR). Type of genetic recombination in which genetic material is exchanged between two similar or identical regions of DNA.

Marker genes

In microbiome context: genes or genetic segments, the presence or specific DNA sequence of which is distinctive of a category of interest such as a species or clade.

Selective sweep

A reduction of the genetic variation in a population owing to selection acting on novel mutations or existing alleles.

Hard selective sweep

One beneficial allele at a locus replaces most other alleles in the population.

Soft selective sweeps

Multiple beneficial alleles at a locus gain prevalence, replacing standing genetic variation in the population.

Infraspecific

Below species level, that is, at a higher resolution than species.

Metagenome-assembled genomes

(MAGs). Genome sequences recovered from metagenomic data, usually fragmented, and potentially incomplete or contaminated. Typically, shotgun metagenomic sequencing produces short DNA sequences that are then assembled and binned into ‘genomes’ using k-mer frequencies and abundance information.

Type strains

Living cultures that serve as a fixed reference point for the assignment of bacterial and archaeal names. They are descended from the original isolate used in a species’ description and share all of its relevant phenotypic and genotypic properties.

Microbiomics

The study of microbial communities (microbiomes) using one or more -omic approaches; for example, genomics, transcriptomics and proteomics.

Polyphyletic

Describes a group of organisms that do not share an immediate common ancestor; not a clade.

Guilds

A guild is a group of species that use the same type of resources in a similar way; although originally defined as a group of species (Root, 1967), the concept could be applied to strains or subspecies.

Genome-wide sweep

Alleles at the locus under selection cause other linked loci (for example, genome and plasmid) to gain or lose abundance across the population; also known as a broad sweep.

Gene-specific sweep

Only alleles at the locus under selection gain or lose abundance across the population; also known as a narrow or locus-specific sweep.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Van Rossum, T., Ferretti, P., Maistrenko, O.M. et al. Diversity within species: interpreting strains in microbiomes. Nat Rev Microbiol 18, 491–506 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-020-0368-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-020-0368-1

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Microbiology

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Microbiology newsletter — what matters in microbiology research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Microbiology