Host DNA Depletion Methods for Shotgun Metagenomics: A 2025 Guide for Clinical Researchers

Abstract

Shotgun metagenomic sequencing is revolutionizing pathogen detection and microbiome research but is critically limited by the overwhelming presence of host DNA in clinical samples. This article provides a comprehensive, evidence-based overview of host DNA depletion strategies, from foundational principles to advanced applications. Drawing on the latest 2025 research, we systematically compare the performance, biases, and optimization of methods across diverse sample types—including respiratory, urine, blood, and tissue. We detail practical workflows for implementation, address common challenges like contamination and taxonomic bias, and validate methods through comparative clinical studies. This guide is tailored to empower researchers and drug development professionals in selecting and optimizing host depletion protocols to enhance the sensitivity and diagnostic yield of metagenomic sequencing.

The Critical Challenge of Host DNA in Clinical Metagenomics

Why Host DNA is a Major Bottleneck in Shotgun Sequencing

Shotgun metagenomic sequencing has revolutionized the study of microbial communities, enabling unprecedented insights into microbial ecology and function. However, a significant technical challenge persists: the overwhelming abundance of host DNA in samples collected from plants, animals, or humans. This host genetic material consumes valuable sequencing resources and obscures microbial signals, particularly in low-microbial-biomass environments. The genomic size disparity is profound—a single human cell contains approximately 3 Gb of genomic data, while a viral particle may contain only 30 kb, representing a difference of up to 100,000-fold [1]. Consequently, in samples such as bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), over 99% of sequencing reads may originate from the host, drastically reducing the sensitivity of microbial detection [2] [1]. This application note examines the critical bottleneck of host DNA in shotgun sequencing and outlines validated strategies to overcome this challenge.

The Impact of Host DNA on Sequencing Efficiency

Data Dilution and Resource Depletion

The excessive presence of host DNA creates a substantial "data dilution" effect, where microbial signals are drowned out by host genetic material. This inefficiency forces researchers to sequence at greater depths to achieve sufficient microbial coverage, significantly increasing costs without guaranteeing improved results. In clinical samples like BALF, host DNA can cause over 90% of sequencing resources to be consumed non-productively [1]. The problem is particularly acute in samples with low microbial biomass, where the ratio of microbial to host DNA is naturally unfavorable.

Compromised Sensitivity and Taxonomic Resolution

High host DNA content directly impairs the detection of low-abundance microorganisms. Without effective host depletion, the sensitivity for identifying pathogens or rare commensals can decrease by 1-2 orders of magnitude [1]. Research demonstrates that host DNA depletion methods significantly increase microbial reads, species richness, gene richness, and genome coverage while improving the detection of less abundant taxa [2] [3]. The trade-off, however, is that some depletion methods may reduce total bacterial biomass, introduce contamination, or alter microbial abundance profiles [2].

Table 1: Impact of Host DNA Depletion on Sequencing Metrics in Respiratory Samples

Metric	Before Host Depletion	After Host Depletion	Fold Change	Citation
Microbial read proportion in BALF	0.02% (median)	0.09% - 2.66%	2.5x - 100x	[2]
Microbial read count (RPM) in blood	925 RPM	9,351 RPM	>10x	[4]
Bacterial gene detection	Baseline	Increased by 34%-96%	N/A	[1]
Host DNA concentration	4446.16 ng/mL (BALF median)	396-494 pg/mL	~10,000x reduction	[2]

Host DNA Depletion Methodologies

Pre-extraction Methods: Physical and Chemical Separation

Pre-extraction methods focus on removing host DNA before nucleic acid extraction, typically by exploiting physical or biological differences between host and microbial cells.

Filtration-Based Techniques

Filtration methods use pore sizes (typically 0.22-5 μm) that allow microbes to pass while retaining larger host cells. A novel Zwitterionic Interface Ultra-Self-assemble Coating (ZISC)-based filtration device has demonstrated >99% removal of white blood cells while allowing unimpeded passage of bacteria and viruses [4]. This method, designated F_ase in respiratory studies, showed balanced performance with a 65.6-fold increase in microbial reads in BALF samples [2].

Protocol: ZISC-Based Filtration for Blood Samples

• Transfer 4 mL of whole blood to a syringe securely connected to the ZISC filter
• Gently depress the syringe plunger to push the blood sample through the filter into a 15 mL collection tube
• Centrifuge filtrate at 400g for 15 min at room temperature to isolate plasma
• Perform high-speed centrifugation (16,000g) to pellet microbial cells
• Proceed to DNA extraction using specialized microbial DNA enrichment kits [4]

Enzymatic and Chemical Lysis

These methods selectively lyse host cells while preserving microbial integrity. Saponin lysis followed by nuclease digestion (S_ase) has shown exceptional efficiency, reducing host DNA in BALF to 0.011% of original concentration (493.82 pg/mL from 4446.16 ng/mL) [2]. Optimal saponin concentration was determined to be 0.025% after testing various concentrations. Similarly, osmotic lysis methods exploit the differential resistance of microbial cell walls to osmotic stress.

Protocol: Saponin-Based Host Depletion for Respiratory Samples

• Add saponin to sample at final concentration of 0.025%
• Incubate to lyse host cells while leaving microbial cells intact
• Add nucleases (e.g., DNase I) to degrade released host DNA
• Inactivate nucleases and proceed to microbial DNA extraction
• Include cryopreservation with 25% glycerol if samples are not processed immediately [2]

Centrifugation-Based Separation

Differential centrifugation exploits density differences between host cells and microbes. While cost-effective and simple, this method cannot remove intracellular host DNA or free DNA from already-lysed host cells [1].

Commercial Kits for Host Depletion

Several commercial kits are available with optimized protocols for specific sample types:

• QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit: Uses differential lysis of human cells followed by enzymatic digestion of released DNA. Demonstrated 55.3-fold increase in microbial reads in BALF with good bacterial retention (21% median in OP samples) [2].
• HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit: Showed best performance in increasing microbial read proportion in BALF (2.66% of total reads, 100.3-fold increase) but with variable bacterial retention [2].
• Molzym MolYsis Complete5: Effective for milk samples, though with lower DNA yield (1.2 ± 0.4 ng/μL) compared to other methods [5].
• NEBNext Microbiome DNA Enrichment Kit: A post-extraction method that targets CpG-methylated host DNA. Has shown poor performance in respiratory samples [2] but can be combined with other methods.

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Host Depletion Methods Across Sample Types

Method	Type	Key Principle	Efficiency	Limitations	Optimal Sample Type
ZISC-filtration (F_ase)	Pre-extraction	Size-based separation with zwitterionic coating	>99% host cell removal, 65x microbial reads	Requires specialized equipment	Blood, BALF [4] [2]
Saponin + Nuclease (S_ase)	Pre-extraction	Selective host cell lysis	10,000x host reduction, 56x microbial reads	May damage fragile microbes	Respiratory samples [2]
QIAamp DNA Microbiome	Pre-extraction	Differential lysis + enzymatic digestion	55x microbial reads, good bacterial retention	Protocol complexity	Various [2]
HostZERO	Pre-extraction	Proprietary host removal	100x microbial reads	Variable bacterial retention	BALF [2]
NEBNext Microbiome	Post-extraction	Methylation-sensitive enrichment	Variable performance	Inefficient for high-host samples	Low-host DNA samples [2] [5]

Bioinformatic Filtering: The Computational Solution

After sequencing, bioinformatic tools provide a final opportunity to remove host-derived reads:

• Bowtie2/BWA: Highly efficient alignment tools for mapping reads against host reference genomes [1]
• KneadData: Integrates quality control (FastQC) with host removal (Bowtie2) and includes databases for human and mouse genomes [1]
• BMTagger: NCBI-developed tool specifically for detecting human contamination in microbiome data [1]

These tools require complete host reference genomes and cannot remove sequences with high homology to host DNA, such as human endogenous retroviruses [1]. While essential, bioinformatic filtering alone cannot recover sequencing resources already wasted on host DNA.

Experimental Design and Workflow Integration

Method Selection Framework

Choosing the appropriate host depletion strategy requires careful consideration of sample type, research objectives, and practical constraints:

• High-host-content tissues (lung, intestine): Prefer saponin-based methods or commercial kits (QIAamp DNA Microbiome) that effectively handle high host DNA loads [2] [1]
• Blood samples: Novel filtration methods (ZISC) show superior performance with >99% white blood cell removal [4]
• Low-biomass samples (urine, CSF): Multiple displacement amplification (MDA) can overcome DNA concentration limitations but may introduce bias [6] [5]
• When minimal disruption to microbial community is critical: Physical separation methods or enzymatic approaches with gentle lysis conditions

Quality Control and Validation

Rigorous QC measures are essential throughout the host depletion workflow:

• Quantify host and microbial DNA pre- and post-depletion using qPCR or fluorometric methods
• Monitor bacterial biomass retention to ensure depletion methods don't eliminate target microbes
• Include mock communities and negative controls to identify contamination and taxonomic biases [2]
• Assess community composition fidelity to verify that depletion doesn't alter relative abundances

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for Host DNA Depletion Studies

Reagent/Kit	Primary Function	Application Notes	Citation
Saponin	Selective host cell membrane disruption	Optimal at 0.025% for respiratory samples; higher concentrations may damage microbes	[2]
DNase I	Degradation of free host DNA	Used after host cell lysis; requires subsequent inactivation	[2]
Propidium Monoazide (PMA)	Selective degradation of free DNA	Light-activated DNA crosslinker; used at 10μM concentration	[2]
ZISC-filter	Physical separation of host cells	>99% WBC removal; preserves microbial composition	[4]
QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit	Integrated host depletion & DNA extraction	Effective for various sample types; good bacterial retention	[2] [6]
HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit	Commercial host depletion	Highest microbial read increase in BALF; variable retention	[2]
NEBNext Microbiome Enrichment	Methylation-based depletion	Post-extraction method; less effective for high-host samples	[2] [5]

Host DNA remains a critical bottleneck in shotgun metagenomic sequencing, particularly for clinical and low-biomass samples. Effective depletion strategies can increase microbial reads by 10-100-fold and improve detection of low-abundance taxa. The optimal approach varies by sample type—filtration methods show exceptional promise for blood, while saponin-based lysis works well for respiratory samples. Commercial kits offer standardized protocols but with varying efficiency across sample types.

Future advancements will likely focus on methods that preserve microbial community integrity while maximizing host removal, particularly for challenging sample types like urine and milk. Integration of multiple displacement amplification with host depletion may enable sequencing of ultra-low-biomass samples. As these technologies mature, standardized protocols and rigorous validation will be essential for generating comparable data across studies and advancing our understanding of host-associated microbiomes.

Impact of Host DNA on Sequencing Sensitivity, Cost, and Pathogen Detection

In shotgun metagenomic sequencing, the presence of host DNA in samples derived from tissues or body fluids represents a significant technical challenge. It can severely compromise the sensitivity of microbial detection, increase sequencing costs, and reduce the accuracy of pathogen identification [1]. In clinical samples such as bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), host DNA can constitute over 99.9% of the total sequenced nucleic acids, drastically diluting the microbial signal [2]. This disparity arises because a single human cell contains a ~3 Gb genome, while a viral particle may have only 30 kb of genetic material—a difference of up to five orders of magnitude [1]. Effective host DNA depletion is therefore a critical prerequisite for obtaining meaningful metagenomic data, particularly in low-microbial-biomass environments or when targeting rare pathogens. This application note synthesizes current evidence and methodologies to provide a structured framework for managing host DNA interference in research and diagnostic settings.

The Consequences of Host DNA Contamination

Erosion of Sequencing Sensitivity and Pathogen Detection

High levels of host DNA directly compete with microbial DNA for sequencing resources, leading to a substantial decrease in sensitivity. In samples with 90% host DNA, the sensitivity of whole metagenome sequencing (WMS) for detecting low-abundance and very-low-abundance bacterial species is significantly reduced [7]. This effect is exacerbated at lower sequencing depths, increasing the number of species that remain undetected [7]. For instance, in respiratory microbiome studies, the microbe-to-host read ratio in BALF samples can be as low as 1:5263, highlighting the overwhelming background against which microbial signals must be discerned [2].

• Impact on Microbial Genome Coverage: The high background of host reads results in insufficient coverage of microbial genomes, hindering the detection of specific pathogens and the recovery of metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs). Effective host DNA depletion has been shown to increase the rate of bacterial gene detection by 33.89% in human colon biopsies and by 95.75% in mouse colon tissues [1].
• Limitations for Functional Potential Analysis: The inability to adequately cover microbial genomes due to host DNA interference directly impacts the ability to mine MAGs for relevant microbial functions, such as central metabolic pathways or genes involved in environmental chemical degradation [6].

Escalating Costs and Resource Inefficiency

From a practical and economic perspective, sequencing a high proportion of host DNA represents a significant waste of resources. In samples with high host content, such as BALF, over 90% of sequencing resources can be consumed by non-informative host reads [1]. This inefficiency forces researchers to either sequence at greater depths to acquire a minimal number of microbial reads—dramatically increasing per-sample costs—or to accept data with poor microbial coverage, which can compromise the entire study's conclusions.

Compromised Taxonomic Resolution and Profile Fidelity

The dilution of microbial reads by host DNA can alter the apparent structure of the microbial community. Taxonomic profiling becomes less accurate as the proportion of host DNA increases, even when the sequencing depth is fixed [7]. Furthermore, some host depletion methods can introduce their own biases; for example, certain methods may significantly diminish the detection of specific commensals and pathogens, such as Prevotella spp. and Mycoplasma pneumoniae [2]. This can lead to skewed microbial abundance measurements and false conclusions about the microbial community's composition.

Comparative Performance of Host Depletion Methods

A range of methods exists to deplete host DNA, falling into two main categories: pre-extraction methods (physical or chemical removal of host cells/DNA prior to DNA extraction) and post-extraction methods (enzymatic or bioinformatic removal after extraction) [2] [1].

Performance Benchmarking in Respiratory Samples

A comprehensive 2025 study benchmarked seven pre-extraction host depletion methods using BALF and oropharyngeal (OP) samples. The methods significantly increased microbial reads, species richness, gene richness, and genome coverage, though they also introduced varying levels of contamination and taxonomic bias [2]. The following table summarizes the performance of these methods based on the study's findings.

Table 1: Performance of Host DNA Depletion Methods in Respiratory Samples

Method (Abbreviation)	Description	Key Performance Metrics	Noted Biases/Contamination
Saponin Lysis + Nuclease (S_ase)	Pre-extraction; lysis of human cells with saponin, digestion of freed DNA.	Highest host DNA removal efficiency (to 0.9‱ of original in BALF) [2].	Some commensals/pathogens (e.g., Prevotella, M. pneumoniae) diminished [2].
HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit (K_zym)	Commercial pre-extraction kit.	Best performance in increasing microbial read proportion in BALF (100.3-fold increase) [2].	Introduces contamination; alters microbial abundance [2].
Filtering + Nuclease (F_ase)	Pre-extraction; 10 μm filtering followed by nuclease digestion.	Balanced overall performance; good increase in microbial reads (65.6-fold in BALF) [2].	N/A
QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit (K_qia)	Commercial pre-extraction kit.	High bacterial retention rate in OP samples (median 21%); effective in shotgun metagenomics [2] [8].	N/A
Nuclease Digestion (R_ase)	Pre-extraction; digestion of cell-free DNA.	Highest bacterial retention rate in BALF (median 31%) [2].	Lower effectiveness in increasing microbial read proportion [2].
Osmotic Lysis + Nuclease (O_ase)	Pre-extraction; osmotic lysis of human cells followed by nuclease digestion.	Moderate performance (25.4-fold microbial read increase in BALF) [2].	N/A
Osmotic Lysis + PMA (O_pma)	Pre-extraction; osmotic lysis followed by propidium monoazide degradation.	Least effective in increasing microbial reads (2.5-fold in BALF) [2].	N/A

Performance in Other Sample Types

The efficacy of host depletion methods can vary significantly across different sample types due to differences in microbial load, host cell burden, and sample matrix.

Table 2: Host Depletion Method Performance Across Sample Types

Sample Type	Recommended Method(s)	Key Findings	Source
Urine (Urobiome)	QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit	Yielded the greatest microbial diversity in 16S rRNA and shotgun data; maximized MAG recovery while effectively depleting host DNA.	[6]
Intestinal Tissue	NEBNext Microbiome DNA Enrichment Kit, QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit	Efficiently reduced host DNA, resulting in 24% and 28% bacterial sequences, respectively, versus <1% in controls.	[8]
Broad Applicability	Physical Separation (Centrifugation/Filtration)	Low cost and rapid, but cannot remove intracellular host DNA. Suitable for virus enrichment from body fluids.	[1]

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol: Benchmarking Host Depletion Methods for Respiratory Fluids

This protocol is adapted from a comprehensive study comparing seven host depletion methods for BALF and oropharyngeal swabs [2].

1. Sample Preparation and Pre-processing

• Collect BALF and OP samples using standard clinical procedures.
• For BALF, centrifuge samples and resuspend pellets for analysis.
• For OP swabs, place swabs in a transport medium and vortex to release material.
• Optional Cryopreservation: Add 25% glycerol to samples before freezing to improve microbial recovery.

2. Host Depletion Method Execution The following methods should be applied in parallel to aliquots of the same sample to enable comparative analysis.

• F_ase Method (Newly Developed):
  • Pass the sample through a 10 μm filter to capture host cells while allowing microbial cells to pass through.
  • Collect the filtrate and subject it to nuclease digestion (e.g., using DNase I) to degrade any residual cell-free host DNA.
  • Recover microbial cells from the nuclease-treated filtrate via centrifugation.
• S_ase Method:
  • Treat the sample with a low concentration of saponin (optimized at 0.025%) to lyse host cells.
  • Immediately follow with nuclease digestion to degrade the released host DNA.
  • Centrifuge to pellet the intact microbial cells.
• Commercial Kits (Kzym, Kqia):
  • Follow the manufacturer's instructions precisely for the HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit or the QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit.
  • These typically involve steps for selective lysis of host cells, nuclease digestion, and subsequent purification of microbial DNA.

3. DNA Extraction and Quality Control

• Extract DNA from the host-depleted samples using a standardized, robust DNA extraction kit (e.g., QIAamp BiOstic Bacteremia Kit).
• Quantify total DNA yield using a fluorometer (e.g., Qubit).
• Critical Step: Quantify the remaining host DNA using a qPCR assay specific for a single-copy host gene (e.g., β-actin) to objectively evaluate depletion efficiency.

4. Library Preparation and Sequencing

• Prepare shotgun metagenomic libraries using a standardized kit (e.g., Nextera XT DNA Library Prep Kit).
• Sequence on a high-throughput platform (e.g., Illumina NextSeq 550) to a sufficient depth (e.g., 12-16 million reads per sample).

5. Bioinformatic Analysis

• Perform quality control on raw sequencing reads using tools like FastQC.
• Remove host-derived reads by aligning to the host reference genome (e.g., GRCh38 for human) using Bowtie2 or BWA.
• Taxonomically profile the remaining microbial reads using a tool like MetaPhlAn2.
• Calculate key metrics: proportion of microbial reads, species richness, and genome coverage.

Diagram 1: Workflow for benchmarking host DNA depletion methods. BALF: Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid; QC: Quality control.

Protocol: dPCR-Based Absolute Abundance Quantification

This protocol describes a framework for converting relative abundances from 16S rRNA gene sequencing to absolute abundances using digital PCR (dPCR), thereby overcoming the limitations of relative data [9].

1. Sample Processing and DNA Extraction

• Process samples (e.g., stool, mucosal scrapings) with a DNA extraction method that has been validated for efficiency and evenness across both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria.
• Efficiency Validation: Spike a defined microbial community into germ-free sample matrices and perform a dilution series to confirm linear recovery of microbial DNA.

2. Digital PCR (dPCR) for Total 16S rRNA Gene Quantification

• Reaction Setup: Prepare a dPCR reaction mixture containing EvaGreen supermix, primers targeting the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene, and the extracted sample DNA.
• Partitioning and Amplification: Partition the reaction mixture into thousands of nanoliter-sized droplets using a droplet generator. Perform PCR amplification on the droplet emulsion.
• Reading the Chip: Use a droplet reader to count the number of positive (fluorescent) and negative droplets.
• Absolute Quantification: Calculate the absolute concentration of 16S rRNA gene copies in the original sample using the ratio of positive to negative droplets, without the need for a standard curve.

3. 16S rRNA Gene Amplicon Sequencing

• From the same DNA extract, prepare 16S rRNA gene amplicon libraries for high-throughput sequencing.
• Use primers targeting the V4 region and sequence on an Illumina MiSeq or similar platform.

4. Data Integration and Calculation of Absolute Abundance

• Process sequencing data to determine the relative abundance of each taxon.
• Use the absolute concentration of total 16S rRNA gene copies obtained from dPCR to convert relative abundances to absolute abundances: Absolute Abundance of Taxon A = (Relative Abundance of Taxon A) × (Total 16S rRNA gene copies/gram of sample)

Diagram 2: Workflow for absolute microbial quantification using digital PCR.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Kits

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Host DNA Depletion

Reagent/Kit Name	Type	Primary Function	Key Application Notes
HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit (Zymo)	Pre-extraction Kit	Selectively lyses host cells and digests DNA; purifies intact microbial DNA.	Demonstrated top performance for increasing microbial read proportion in BALF samples [2].
QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit (Qiagen)	Pre-extraction Kit	Enriches microbial DNA from samples containing host cells via selective lysis.	Effective in respiratory, urine, and intestinal samples; good bacterial retention [2] [8] [6].
MolYsis Basic/Complete5 (Molzym)	Pre-extraction Kit	Series of reagents for stepwise host cell lysis, DNase digestion, and microbial DNA purification.	Validated for various sample types including respiratory fluids and tissue [8].
NEBNext Microbiome DNA Enrichment Kit	Post-extraction Kit	Enriches microbial DNA post-extraction by exploiting differential methylation (CpG) between host and microbes.	Performance can be variable; showed poor host removal in respiratory samples but worked well in intestinal tissue [2] [8].
Saponin	Chemical Reagent	Detergent that disrupts cholesterol in host cell membranes, leading to lysis.	Concentration is critical (e.g., 0.025% optimized); used in custom S_ase method [2].
Propidium Monoazide (PMA)	Chemical Dye	Penetrates compromised (host) membranes, intercalates into DNA, and covalently crosslinks it upon light exposure, inhibiting PCR.	Used in O_pma method; less effective in respiratory samples; concentration (e.g., 10 μM) requires optimization [2].
DNase I	Enzyme	Degrades double- or single-stranded DNA; used to digest host DNA after selective host cell lysis.	A core component of many pre-extraction depletion methods (e.g., Rase, Oase, Sase, Fase) [2] [1].

Integrated Depletion and Analysis Workflow

Diagram 3: Decision framework for integrating host DNA depletion strategies.

Concluding Recommendations

The impact of host DNA on sequencing sensitivity, cost, and detection accuracy is too substantial to ignore. A successful metagenomic study requires a carefully considered strategy that often combines both wet-lab and computational host depletion methods.

• For high-host-burden samples like BALF, tissues, or urine during infection, a pre-extraction physical or chemical method (e.g., Sase, Kzym, or K_qia) is highly recommended to maximize microbial read yield and cost-efficiency before sequencing [2] [6].
• For all samples, bioinformatic removal of host reads using tools like Bowtie2 or KneadData remains an essential, final cleaning step to ensure data quality [7] [1].
• For functional and strain-level analysis, where understanding absolute changes is critical, integrating quantitative methods like dPCR to measure absolute abundances is paramount, as relative abundance data alone can be misleading [9].

The choice of method is sample- and question-dependent. Researchers are encouraged to pilot different depletion strategies on a subset of their samples to establish an optimized, cost-effective workflow that ensures the depth and quality of data required for their specific research objectives.

In shotgun metagenomic sequencing of host-associated microbial communities, the overwhelming abundance of host DNA presents a significant analytical challenge. Efficient host DNA depletion coupled with high microbial DNA retention is critical for obtaining sufficient microbial sequencing depth for meaningful taxonomic and functional analysis. This application note defines the core metrics for evaluating host depletion methods and provides detailed protocols for their assessment, framed within the broader context of optimizing shotgun metagenomics for microbiome research. The need for these metrics is particularly acute in low-microbial-biomass, high-host-DNA environments such as urine, respiratory samples, and tissue biopsies, where host DNA can constitute over 99.9% of the total sequenced reads [6] [2].

Quantitative Metrics for Evaluating Host Depletion Methods

The performance of host depletion techniques is quantified through a set of complementary metrics. Researchers should employ these in tandem to gain a comprehensive understanding of a method's efficacy and potential biases. The table below summarizes the key quantitative metrics used for evaluation.

Table 1: Key Quantitative Metrics for Evaluating Host Depletion Methods

Metric	Description	Measurement Technique	Interpretation
Host Depletion Efficiency	The reduction in host DNA concentration after depletion.	qPCR (e.g., for single-copy host genes) [2]	Higher reduction (orders of magnitude) indicates better performance.
Microbial DNA Retention Rate	The percentage of microbial DNA remaining after the depletion process.	qPCR (e.g., for 16S rRNA genes) or spike-in controls [2]	A higher percentage is desirable, indicating minimal loss of target material.
Microbial Read Fold-Increase	The fold-change in the proportion of microbial reads in sequencing data post-depletion.	Shotgun Metagenomic Sequencing [6] [2]	A primary indicator of success for downstream sequencing efficiency.
Species Richness	The number of microbial species detected after host depletion.	Bioinformatic analysis of sequencing data (e.g., with Meteor2, MetaPhlAn4) [10]	Should be maintained or increased; a significant drop may indicate method-induced bias.
Functional Gene Richness	The number of microbial genes or functional pathways detected.	Bioinformatic analysis of sequencing data (e.g., with HUMAnN3, Meteor2) [10] [11]	Indicates the method's compatibility with functional metagenomics.

Data from benchmarking studies reveal the variable performance of different methods. In a study on respiratory samples, the Kzym (HostZERO kit) method showed a 100.3-fold increase in microbial reads, while the Sase (saponin lysis + nuclease) method reduced host DNA to 0.01% of its original concentration [2]. Conversely, another study on urine samples found that the QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit effectively depleted host DNA while maximizing the recovery of metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) [6]. These disparities highlight the importance of context, including sample type and intended downstream analysis, when selecting a method.

Experimental Protocols for Metric Assessment

Protocol: Benchmarking Host Depletion Efficiency and Microbial DNA Retention

This protocol is adapted from comprehensive benchmarking studies performed on respiratory and urine samples [6] [2].

I. Sample Preparation and Spiking

• Collect Sample Matrix: Use a representative sample type (e.g., bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), urine) with low microbial biomass.
• Spike with Host Cells: To standardize comparisons, spike the sample with a known quantity of host cells (e.g., canine cells for dog urine [6]) to model a high host-cell burden.
• Include Controls:
  • Negative Controls: Process no-sample blanks through the entire workflow to identify contamination [6].
  • Positive Controls: Consider using a mock microbial community of known composition to assess bias.

II. Host Depletion and DNA Extraction

• Apply Depletion Methods: Process aliquots of the prepared sample with each host depletion method to be evaluated. Key methods include:
  • Kqia: QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit (selective host cell lysis and enzymatic digestion) [6] [2].
  • Kzym: Zymo HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit (selective lysis and digestion) [6] [2].
  • Sase: Saponin Lysis + Nuclease Digestion (0.025% saponin concentration optimized for respiratory samples) [2].
  • Fase: 10 µm Filtering + Nuclease Digestion (a physical filtration method) [2].
  • Rase: Nuclease Digestion only (targets cell-free DNA) [2].
  • Opma: Osmotic Lysis + Propidium Monoazide (PMA) degradation (10 µM PMA) [6] [2].
• Extract DNA: Following the depletion step, proceed with total DNA extraction according to the kit manufacturer's instructions or standardized protocol.

III. Pre-Sequencing Quantification

• Quantify Total DNA: Use a fluorometric method (e.g., Qubit).
• Quantify Host DNA: Perform qPCR targeting a single-copy host gene (e.g., β-actin).
• Quantify Bacterial DNA: Perform qPCR targeting the 16S rRNA gene.
• Calculate Efficiency:
  • Host Depletion Efficiency = 1 - (Host DNApost-depletion / Host DNApre-depletion)
  • Microbial DNA Retention Rate = (Microbial DNApost-depletion / Microbial DNApre-depletion) * 100%

IV. Library Preparation and Sequencing

• Prepare Libraries: Construct shotgun metagenomic libraries from all samples and controls.
• Sequence: Perform shallow or deep shotgun sequencing on an Illumina platform to generate sufficient data for comparison [12].

V. Bioinformatic Analysis

• Pre-process Reads: Quality trim and filter adapter sequences from raw sequencing reads.
• Taxonomic Profiling: Assign reads taxonomically using a tool like Meteor2 or MetaPhlAn4 [10]. Meteor2 leverages environment-specific gene catalogs and has demonstrated high sensitivity, improving species detection by at least 45% in simulated shallow-sequenced datasets compared to other tools [10].
• Calculate Fold-Increase:
  • Microbial Read Fold-Increase = (Microbial Read %post-depletion) / (Microbial Read %pre-depletion)
• Assess Richness: Calculate species richness (alpha-diversity) from the profiling results.
• Identify Contaminants: Use tools like decontam (R package) to identify and remove putative contaminant reads derived from reagents or the laboratory environment based on their prevalence in negative controls [6].

Workflow Diagram

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow and decision points for the experimental protocol described above.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Selecting the appropriate reagents and kits is fundamental to a successful host depletion workflow. The following table details key solutions used in the featured experiments.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Kits for Host Depletion

Reagent/Kit Name	Type	Primary Function	Key Feature / Consideration
QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit (K_qia) [6] [2]	Commercial Kit	Selective lysis of host cells followed by enzymatic digestion of released DNA.	Effective in urine; good microbial diversity recovery [6].
HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit (K_zym) [6] [2]	Commercial Kit	Selective lysis of host cells and digestion of host DNA.	High host DNA removal efficiency in respiratory samples [2].
MolYsis MolYsis Basic/Complete5 [6]	Commercial Kit	Series of reagents for selective host cell lysis and DNase digestion.	Designed for difficult-to-lyse bacterial cells.
NEBNext Microbiome DNA Enrichment Kit [6]	Commercial Kit	Post-extraction depletion of methylated host DNA.	Reported poor performance in respiratory samples [2].
Propidium Monoazide (PMA) [6] [2]	Chemical Treatment	Penetrates compromised host cells, cross-links DNA upon light exposure, inhibiting amplification.	Used in O_pma method; effective against cell-free DNA.
Saponin [2]	Chemical Reagent	Detergent for selective lysis of eukaryotic (host) cell membranes.	Concentration critical (e.g., 0.025% for respiratory samples).
DNase/Nuclease [2] [13]	Enzyme	Digests DNA outside of intact microbial cells (cell-free DNA).	Core component of most pre-extraction methods (Rase, Sase, F_ase).
QIAamp BiOstic Bacteremia Kit [6]	DNA Extraction Kit	Standard DNA extraction without host depletion.	Serves as a "no depletion" control in comparative studies.

Host Depletion Method Evaluation Framework

The performance of different methods varies significantly across sample types. The following diagram synthesizes the experimental data into a decision framework, highlighting the relative performance and potential biases of common techniques.

Rigorous evaluation of host depletion methods using the defined metrics of efficiency and retention is non-negotiable for robust shotgun metagenomics. The optimal method is often a balance between maximizing host DNA removal and minimizing the loss and bias of the microbial community. As demonstrated, performance is highly context-dependent, varying with sample type, host background, and the specific depletion technology employed. By adhering to the standardized protocols and metrics outlined in this document, researchers can make informed decisions, thereby enhancing the resolution and reliability of their metagenomic studies into the roles of microbiomes in health and disease. Future advancements in both wet-lab techniques, such as nanopore adaptive depletion [14], and bioinformatic tools, like Meteor2 [10], promise to further refine our ability to probe these complex microbial communities.

The study of microbiomes in samples like blood, urine, and respiratory fluids using shotgun metagenomic sequencing is fundamentally challenged by low microbial biomass. A primary obstacle is the overwhelming abundance of host-derived nucleic acids, which can constitute over 99.99% of the total DNA in samples like bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), drastically reducing the sequencing depth available for microbial characterization [2]. Host DNA depletion methods are therefore not merely an optimization step but a critical prerequisite for obtaining meaningful microbial data from these sample types. This application note details the specific challenges associated with low microbial biomass samples and provides validated protocols and data to guide researchers in selecting and implementing appropriate host depletion strategies within the broader context of shotgun sequencing research.

The Core Challenge: Host DNA Contamination in Respiratory Samples

Respiratory tract samples, crucial for diagnosing infections and studying respiratory diseases, exemplify the extreme imbalance between host and microbial DNA. In BALF, a representative lower respiratory tract sample, the host DNA content can be extraordinarily high (median reported: 4446.16 ng/ml) while the bacterial load is often very low (median reported: 1.28 ng/ml) [2]. This results in a profoundly skewed microbe-to-host read ratio, with metagenomic sequencing of non-depleted samples yielding a median ratio of 1:5263 [2]. This means that for every microbial DNA fragment sequenced, over five thousand human DNA fragments are sequenced, rendering the process highly inefficient and costly for microbiome profiling. Furthermore, a significant proportion of microbial DNA in these samples (approximately 69-80%) is cell-free [2], presenting an additional complication for depletion methods that target intact microbial cells.

Benchmarking Host Depletion Methods

Host DNA depletion methods can be broadly categorized as pre-extraction and post-extraction techniques. Pre-extraction methods, the focus of this note, physically separate or lyse host cells prior to DNA extraction, leaving microbial cells intact for downstream processing. A recent comprehensive study benchmarked seven such pre-extraction methods for use with BALF and oropharyngeal (OP) swabs [2]:

• R_ase: Nuclease digestion of cell-free DNA.
• O_pma: Osmotic lysis of human cells followed by propidium monoazide (PMA) degradation of DNA.
• O_ase: Osmotic lysis followed by nuclease digestion.
• S_ase: Saponin lysis of human cells followed by nuclease digestion.
• F_ase: A novel method using 10 μm filtering followed by nuclease digestion.
• K_qia: QIAamp DNA Microbiome commercial kit.
• K_zym: HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit commercial kit.

Performance Metrics for Method Selection

The performance of these methods was evaluated based on several critical metrics, summarized in Table 1. These metrics provide a quantitative basis for selecting the most appropriate method for a given research goal and sample type.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Host DNA Depletion Methods for Respiratory Samples

Method	Host DNA Removal Efficiency (BALF)	Microbial Read Increase (BALF, fold-change)	Bacterial DNA Retention (BALF, median %)	Key Taxonomic Biases / Notes
K_zym	0.9‱ of original	100.3x	Data Incomplete	Highest microbial read increase; some commensals (e.g., Prevotella spp.) diminished.
S_ase	1.1‱ of original	55.8x	Data Incomplete	High host removal efficiency; requires optimization of saponin concentration.
F_ase	Data Incomplete	65.6x	Data Incomplete	Balanced performance; novel filtering approach.
K_qia	Data Incomplete	55.3x	21% (in OP samples)	Moderate performance in respiratory samples.
O_ase	Data Incomplete	25.4x	Data Incomplete	Moderate performance.
R_ase	Data Incomplete	16.2x	31% (in BALF)	Highest bacterial retention rate in BALF.
O_pma	Data Incomplete	2.5x	Data Incomplete	Least effective in increasing microbial reads.

Data adapted from [2]. ‱ denotes parts per ten thousand.

Impact on Taxonomic and Functional Resolution

Effective host depletion dramatically enhances the resolution of microbiome analysis. By increasing the proportion of microbial reads, these methods enable more reliable taxonomic classification at the species level and allow for functional gene profiling [2]. This is a significant advancement over 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, which often cannot resolve species-level differences between critical pathogens (e.g., Staphylococcus aureus vs. S. epidermidis or Haemophilus influenzae vs. H. parainfluenzae) and provides only inferred, not directly observed, functional data [12]. Shallow shotgun sequencing, when coupled with effective host depletion, has been shown to provide species-level resolution and detect pathogens like Mycobacterium spp. that can be missed by both culture and 16S sequencing [12].

Detailed Experimental Protocol for Host Depletion

Below is a detailed workflow for processing respiratory samples, incorporating the most effective host depletion methods as identified in the benchmarking study. This protocol is adaptable for other low-biomass sample types with appropriate validation.

Diagram 1: Host DNA depletion workflow for respiratory samples.

Sample Preparation and Storage

• Sample Collection: Collect BALF and OP swabs according to standardized clinical procedures. Use sterile saline for BALF and flocked swabs for OP samples [2].
• Cryopreservation: To preserve microbial integrity for later processing, add 25% glycerol to the sample immediately after collection. This step was empirically determined to improve outcomes compared to no cryopreservative [2].
• Storage: Store samples at -80°C until processing.

Host DNA Depletion Methodologies

The core of the protocol involves selecting and executing a depletion method. The following are detailed steps for two high-performing methods, Sase and Fase:

S_ase Method (Saponin Lysis + Nuclease Digestion)

• Thaw Samples: Thaw frozen samples on ice.
• Saponin Lysis:
  • Add saponin to the sample to a final concentration of 0.025%. This low concentration was optimized to effectively lyse human cells while minimizing damage to bacterial cells [2].
  • Incubate the mixture for 15 minutes at room temperature with gentle agitation.
• Nuclease Digestion:
  • Add a broad-spectrum nuclease (e.g., Benzonase) according to the manufacturer's instructions, along with the required MgCl₂.
  • Incubate for 30-60 minutes at 37°C to digest released host DNA.
• Enzyme Inactivation: Stop the reaction by adding EDTA to a final concentration of 5-10 mM.

F_ase Method (Filtering + Nuclease Digestion) - A Novel Approach

• Thaw Samples: Thaw frozen samples on ice.
• Microbial Enrichment by Filtration:
  • Pass the sample through a 10 μm filter. This pore size allows most bacterial cells to pass through while retaining larger human cells and debris.
  • Collect the flow-through, which is enriched in microbial content.
• Nuclease Digestion:
  • Treat the flow-through with nuclease as described in the S_ase method (Step 3) to digest any remaining cell-free host DNA.
• Enzyme Inactivation: Stop the reaction with EDTA.

Downstream Processing

• Microbial DNA Extraction: Following host depletion, concentrate the microbial cells by centrifugation (e.g., 14,000 x g for 10 min). Proceed with DNA extraction using a kit suitable for bacterial lysis (e.g., DNeasy PowerLyzer kit). Validate extraction efficiency and DNA quality using spectrophotometry or fluorometry.
• Library Preparation and Sequencing: Prepare sequencing libraries from the extracted DNA using a standard metagenomic shotgun library prep kit. For cost-effective large-scale studies, shallow shotgun sequencing at a depth of 2-5 million reads per sample is recommended [15] [16]. This depth provides a favorable balance between cost and taxonomic resolution for biomarker discovery.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Host DNA Depletion

Item	Function / Description	Example / Specification
Saponin	Detergent for selective lysis of mammalian cells.	Use at optimized low concentration (0.025%) [2].
Broad-Spectrum Nuclease	Enzymatic degradation of free DNA (primarily host-derived).	e.g., Benzonase; requires Mg²⁺ as a cofactor [2].
Propidium Monoazide (PMA)	DNA cross-linker; penetrates compromised host cells but not intact microbial cells.	Used in O_pma method at 10 μM [2].
Size-Based Filters	Physical separation of microbial cells from larger host cells and debris.	10 μm pore size filter for F_ase method [2].
Commercial Kits	Standardized reagents for host depletion.	HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit (Zymo) or QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit (Qiagen) [2].
Glycerol	Cryoprotectant to maintain microbial cell viability during sample storage.	Use at 25% concentration for respiratory samples [2].
DNA Extraction Kit	Lysis and purification of DNA from intact microbial cells.	Kits designed for tough microbial cell walls (e.g., Gram-positive bacteria).

Critical Considerations and Best Practices

Method-Specific Biases and Limitations

No host depletion method is free from bias. All pre-extraction methods can significantly alter the observed microbial abundance and introduce contamination [2]. Critically, some commensals and pathogens, including Prevotella spp. and Mycoplasma pneumoniae, may be significantly diminished by the depletion process [2]. Furthermore, pre-extraction methods are inherently unable to capture cell-free microbial DNA, which constitutes the majority of microbial DNA in some respiratory samples [2]. Researchers must be aware that the choice of depletion method will shape the resulting microbial community profile.

Concordance Between Upper and Lower Respiratory Samples

When using upper respiratory samples (e.g., OP swabs) as proxies for lower tract infections, caution is advised. High-resolution microbiome profiling has revealed distinct niche preferences between the upper and lower tracts. In patients with pneumonia, 16.7% of high-abundance species (>1%) in BALF were underrepresented (<0.1%) in OP samples [2]. This highlights a significant limitation of OP samples and suggests that direct sampling of the lower respiratory tract, when feasible and ethically justified, provides a more accurate assessment of the lung microbiome.

A Practical Guide to Host Depletion Techniques and Workflows

Shotgun metagenomic sequencing has revolutionized microbial research by enabling comprehensive taxonomic classification and functional gene profiling of complex communities without the limitations of primer-based amplification [17]. However, its application to host-derived samples presents a significant challenge: the overwhelming abundance of host DNA. The human genome is approximately one thousand times larger than a typical bacterial genome, meaning that even samples with a moderate number of human cells can yield a sequencing library where host reads dominate, severely obscuring the microbial signal [18]. In respiratory samples like bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), host DNA can constitute >99.7% of the total sequenced reads, making deep and cost-effective analysis of the resident microbiota exceedingly difficult [2] [19]. Host DNA depletion methods are therefore not merely an optimization step but a critical prerequisite for successful metagenomic studies of most human-associated microbiomes. These methods are broadly categorized into pre-extraction and post-extraction strategies, each with distinct mechanisms, advantages, and limitations [2] [20]. This application note delineates these categories, provides performance data from recent studies, and outlines detailed protocols for implementation.

Categorization of Host Depletion Methodologies

Host DNA depletion strategies are defined by their point of application in the sequencing workflow. The following diagram illustrates the classification and examples of methods within each category.

Pre-extraction Methods

Pre-extraction methods physically or chemically separate microbial cells from host material before DNA is extracted. The core principle involves two steps: first, the selective lysis of fragile mammalian cells, and second, the enzymatic degradation of the released host DNA, leaving intact microbial cells for downstream processing [2] [18]. These methods also inherently deplete extracellular DNA (eDNA), both human and bacterial, which can bias community representations [21]. However, they can introduce bias based on microbial cell wall structure, potentially under-representing Gram-negative or other fragile bacteria, and may involve multiple wash steps that risk losing biomass in low-microbial-load samples [2] [18].

Post-extraction Methods

Post-extraction methods are applied to the total DNA extract after it has been isolated from the sample. These techniques exploit biochemical differences between host and microbial DNA, such as the higher frequency of CpG methylation in mammalian genomes [2] [18]. While these methods avoid the cell loss associated with pre-extraction washing steps, they do not distinguish between intracellular and extracellular microbial DNA. Furthermore, they can be biased against microbes with AT-rich genomes or those with eukaryotic-like methylation patterns and have generally shown poorer performance in removing host DNA from respiratory samples compared to pre-extraction methods [2] [17].

Quantitative Performance Comparison

The choice of host depletion method significantly impacts key sequencing metrics. The following tables summarize the performance of various methods across different sample types, as benchmarked in recent studies.

Table 1: Performance of Host Depletion Methods in Respiratory Samples (BALF and Oropharyngeal Swabs) [2]

Method (Abbreviation)	Category	Host DNA Reduction (BALF)	Microbial Read Increase (BALF)	Bacterial DNA Retention (OP Swab)	Key Characteristics / Potential Bias
HostZERO (K_zym)	Pre-extraction	99.99% (to 0.9‱ of original)	100.3-fold	21% (IQR: 11%-72%)	High host depletion; may impact bacterial biomass.
Saponin + Nuclease (S_ase)	Pre-extraction	99.99% (to 1.1‱ of original)	55.8-fold	Not Specified	High host depletion; potential taxonomic bias.
Filtering + Nuclease (F_ase)	Pre-extraction	Significant (1-4 orders of magnitude)	65.6-fold	Not Specified	Most balanced performance per study.
QIAamp Microbiome (K_qia)	Pre-extraction	Significant (1-4 orders of magnitude)	55.3-fold	21% (IQR: 11%-72%)	Good bacterial retention in OP swabs.
Osmotic Lysis + Nuclease (O_ase)	Pre-extraction	Significant (1-4 orders of magnitude)	25.4-fold	20% (IQR: 9%-34%)	Moderate performance.
Nuclease Digestion (R_ase)	Pre-extraction	Significant (1-4 orders of magnitude)	16.2-fold	20% (IQR: 9%-34%)	Highest bacterial retention in BALF (31%).
Osmotic Lysis + PMA (O_pma)	Pre-extraction	Significant (1-4 orders of magnitude)	2.5-fold	Not Specified	Least effective; may be improved with cryoprotectant [19].

Table 2: Efficacy of Host Depletion in Saliva and Sputum Samples [19] [18] [21]

Method	Category	Sample Type	% Host Reads (After Treatment)	Key Findings
lyPMA (Osmotic Lysis + PMA)	Pre-extraction	Saliva	8.53% (from 89.29%)	Cost-effective, rapid, minimal hands-on time, low taxonomic bias [18].
Benzonase (Hypotonic Lysis + Nuclease)	Pre-extraction	Cystic Fibrosis Sputum	~5% human GEs (by qPCR)	Effectively removes eDNA, increases functional gene coverage [21].
MolYsis	Pre-extraction	Sputum / Nasal	69.6% decrease in host reads (sputum)	Effective for sputum; may fail library prep in some nasal/BAL samples [19].
HostZERO	Pre-extraction	Sputum / Nasal / BAL	45.5% decrease in host reads (sputum)	Effective across sample types; may fail library prep in low biomass samples [19].
NEBNext Microbiome	Post-extraction	Saliva / Respiratory	Poor performance	Biased against AT-rich microbes; not recommended for respiratory samples [2] [18].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Principle: Hypotonically lyses mammalian cells and uses photo-activatable propidium monoazide (PMA) to crosslink and fragment the exposed host DNA, rendering it unamplifiable.

Reagents:

• Propidium Monoazide (PMA)
• Nuclease-free Water
• Phosphate-Buffered Saline (PBS)
• Light source (e.g., Phadebox)

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation: Transfer 200 µl of fresh or frozen saliva/respiratory sample to a light-transparent tube.
• Osmotic Lysis: Add 400 µl of nuclease-free water to the sample. Mix thoroughly by vortexing. Incubate at room temperature for 5 minutes.
• PMA Addition: Add PMA from a stock solution to a final concentration of 10 µM. Mix well and incubate in the dark for 10 minutes.
• Photo-Activation: Place the tube on a light source (e.g., Phadebox) for 15 minutes to activate the PMA.
• DNA Extraction: Pellet the intact microbial cells by centrifugation at 10,000 x g for 8 minutes. Carefully remove the supernatant. Proceed with standard DNA extraction from the pellet using your preferred kit (e.g., DNeasy PowerLyzer Kit).

Principle: Saponin selectively permeabilizes mammalian cell membranes, and a subsequent nuclease digestes the released DNA.

Reagents:

• Saponin
• DNase I (or similar endonuclease)
• Lysis Buffer
• EDTA (for nuclease inactivation)

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation: Aliquot 500 µl of BALF or resuspended swab sample.
• Selective Lysis: Add saponin to a final concentration of 0.025%. Vortex thoroughly and incubate at room temperature for 15 minutes.
• Nuclease Digestion: Add 5 µl of DNase I and incubate at 37°C for 30 minutes to digest free DNA.
• Reaction Stop: Add 10 µl of 0.5 M EDTA to stop the nuclease reaction.
• Microbial Pellet: Centrifuge at 12,000 x g for 10 minutes to pellet the intact microbial cells. Wash the pellet once with PBS.
• DNA Extraction: Extract DNA from the final pellet using a standard microbial DNA extraction kit.

Principle: A modified hypotonic lysis specifically designed to remove both human cellular DNA and extracellular DNA (human and bacterial) to profile the viable microbial community.

Reagents:

• Benzonase Endonuclease
• Triton X-100
• MgCl₂
• PBS

Procedure:

• Sample Homogenization: Dilute and homogenize sputum sample in an equal volume of PBS.
• Hypotonic Lysis: Add Triton X-100 to a final concentration of 0.1%. Mix vigorously and incubate on ice for 5 minutes.
• Nuclease Digestion: Add MgCl₂ to 2 mM and Benzonase to 25 U/ml. Incubate at 37°C for 30 minutes with gentle shaking.
• Pellet Microbes: Centrifuge at 5,000 x g for 10 minutes to pellet microbial cells.
• Wash: Resuspend the pellet in PBS and repeat centrifugation.
• DNA Extraction: Proceed with standard DNA extraction from the final pellet.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Reagents for Host DNA Depletion Protocols

Reagent / Kit	Function / Principle	Example Use Cases
Propidium Monoazide (PMA)	DNA intercalating dye; crosslinks exposed DNA upon light activation, preventing amplification.	lyPMA protocol for saliva and frozen respiratory samples [18].
Saponin	Plant-derived detergent that selectively permeabilizes cholesterol-rich mammalian cell membranes.	S_ase protocol; effective for BALF samples at low concentrations (0.025%) [2].
Benzonase	Potent endonuclease that digests all forms of DNA and RNA (linear, circular, double- and single-stranded).	Benzonase protocol for CF sputum to deplete extracellular DNA [21].
HostZERO Kit (Zymo)	Commercial pre-extraction kit using chemical lysis and nucleases to remove host DNA.	Effective for high-host-content samples like BALF and sputum [2] [19].
QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit (Qiagen)	Commercial pre-extraction kit that enzymatically eliminates host DNA.	Shows good bacterial DNA retention in oropharyngeal swabs [2].
MolYsis Kit (Molzym)	Commercial pre-extraction series designed for selective lysis of human cells and degradation of freed DNA.	Used in various respiratory sample studies [19] [18].
NEBNext Microbiome Enrichment Kit	Commercial post-extraction kit that captures methylated host DNA.	Shows poor performance and bias in respiratory/saliva samples [2] [18].

Implementing a host depletion strategy requires integrating the chosen method into a complete NGS workflow. The following diagram and guidance summarize this process.

Workflow Implementation and Method Selection Guide

• Sample Considerations: The optimal method depends heavily on sample type. For low-biomass respiratory samples like BALF, pre-extraction methods are strongly favored due to their superior host depletion efficiency [2] [19]. For frozen samples, consider methods like lyPMA or ensure the use of cryoprotectants during freezing to maintain microbial cell integrity and method efficacy [19].
• Biomass and Bias: For samples with very low microbial biomass, methods with fewer wash steps (e.g., lyPMA) or those demonstrating higher bacterial retention rates (e.g., Rase, Kqia) are preferable to avoid total DNA loss [2]. Be aware that all methods can introduce taxonomic bias; methods like F_ase have been noted for a more balanced profile [2].
• Conclusion: Pre-extraction methods are currently the most effective strategy for enabling shotgun metagenomic sequencing of high-host-content respiratory samples. The choice between specific protocols should be guided by the sample type, desired balance between host depletion and microbial DNA retention, and the specific research question, particularly regarding the inclusion of extracellular DNA. Integrating these depletion protocols is essential for advancing our understanding of the respiratory microbiome in health and disease through metagenomic analysis.

In shotgun metagenomic sequencing research, the overwhelming abundance of host DNA in clinical samples presents a significant barrier to the sensitive detection of microbial pathogens. Pre-extraction host DNA depletion methods are crucial for enriching microbial signals, thereby improving the efficiency and diagnostic yield of sequencing assays. These methods, employed prior to nucleic acid extraction, physically separate or enzymatically degrade host material while aiming to preserve the integrity of microbial communities. This application note details three core pre-extraction strategies—selective lysis, filtration, and nuclease digestion—providing a quantitative comparison, detailed protocols, and essential reagent information to guide researchers in optimizing their metagenomic workflows.

Performance Comparison of Host Depletion Methods

The choice of host depletion method significantly impacts key performance metrics, including host DNA removal efficiency, microbial DNA retention, and the subsequent increase in microbial sequencing reads. Performance varies considerably based on the sample type and the specific protocol used. The following table summarizes benchmark data from recent studies on respiratory and blood samples.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Pre-extraction Host Depletion Methods

Method Category	Specific Method	Host DNA Reduction	Microbial DNA Retention	Fold Increase in Microbial Reads	Key Advantages & Limitations
Selective Lysis	Saponin Lysis + Nuclease (S_ase) [2]	99.99% (BALF)	Not specified	55.8x (BALF)	High host depletion efficiency; may diminish certain pathogens like Prevotella spp. and M. pneumoniae [2]
	Osmotic Lysis + Nuclease (O_ase) [2]	~1-2 orders of magnitude [2]	Not specified	25.4x (BALF)	Effective host depletion; potential for bias against certain microbial cells [2]
Filtration	10μm Filtering + Nuclease (F_ase) [2]	~1-2 orders of magnitude [2]	Not specified	65.6x (BALF)	Balanced performance; high microbial read enrichment [2]
	ZISC-based Filtration [4]	>99% WBC removal (Blood)	Unimpeded passage of bacteria/viruses	>10x (Blood)	High efficiency, preserves microbial composition, less labor-intensive [4]
Nuclease Digestion	Nuclease-only (R_ase) [2]	~1 order of magnitude [2]	31% median (BALF)	16.2x (BALF)	Highest bacterial DNA retention rate; lower host depletion [2]
Commercial Kits	HostZERO (K_zym) [2]	99.99% (BALF)	Not specified	100.3x (BALF)	One of the most effective in increasing microbial reads [2]
	QIAamp Microbiome Kit [2] [19]	Varies by sample type [19]	21% median (OP) [2]	55.3x (BALF) [2]	Good bacterial retention; effective for nasal and sputum samples [2] [19]

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Selective Lysis with Saponin and Nuclease Digestion (for Respiratory Samples)

This protocol, optimized from [2], uses saponin to selectively lyse mammalian cells followed by nuclease digestion of released host DNA.

Reagents and Equipment:

• Saponin solution (0.025% in PBS) [2]
• Benzonase or similar endonuclease (e.g., ArcticZymes M-SAN HQ or HL-SAN for physiological or high-salt conditions, respectively) [22]
• MgCl₂ (5 mM final concentration for nuclease activity) [22]
• Tris-HCl buffer (25 mM, pH 8.0) [22]
• Microcentrifuge

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation: Transfer 200-500 µL of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) or resuspended oropharyngeal swab sample to a 1.5 mL microcentrifuge tube.
• Selective Lysis: Add an equal volume of 0.025% saponin solution to the sample. Vortex thoroughly and incubate at room temperature for 10 minutes [2].
• Nuclease Digestion: Add MgCl₂ to a final concentration of 5 mM and 1-2 U of a salt-compatible nuclease (e.g., M-SAN HQ). Mix gently and incubate at 37°C for 20-30 minutes to digest exposed host DNA [2] [22].
• Enzyme Inactivation: If required, heat-inactivate the nuclease (e.g., 10 minutes at 65°C for HL-dsDNase) or proceed directly to microbial DNA extraction, as some nucleases do not require inactivation and are compatible with downstream purification [22].

Protocol 2: Filtration-based Host Cell Depletion (for Blood Samples)

This protocol, adapted from [4], uses a Zwitterionic Interface Ultra-Self-assemble Coating (ZISC)-based filter to physically remove host white blood cells.

Reagents and Equipment:

• ZISC-based filtration device (e.g., "Devin" from Micronbrane) [4]
• Syringe (3-13 mL capacity, depending on filter and sample volume) [4]
• Collection tube (15 mL Falcon tube)

Procedure:

• Sample Loading: Draw a defined volume of whole blood (e.g., 4 mL for clinical samples) into a syringe [4].
• Filtration: Securely attach the syringe to the ZISC-based filter. Gently depress the plunger at a steady rate to pass the blood through the filter into a 15 mL collection tube.
• Processing Filtrate: The filtrate, now depleted of >99% of white blood cells but containing microbes, is collected [4]. Centrifuge the filtrate at high speed (e.g., 16,000×g) to pellet microbial cells for downstream DNA extraction [4].

Protocol 3: Optimized Nuclease Digestion for Direct Sample Treatment

This protocol leverages advanced nucleases for efficient host DNA depletion under various buffer conditions, suitable for diverse sample types [22].

Reagents and Equipment:

• Salt-compatible nuclease (Select based on desired buffer: M-SAN HQ for physiological salt, HL-SAN for high salt, HL-dsDNase for low salt) [22]
• MgCl₂
• Appropriate buffer (e.g., Tris-HCl)

Procedure:

• Sample Lysis: For samples requiring it, first lyse the sample using a standard lysis buffer. For direct-from-sample protocols, this step may be omitted [22].
• Condition Adjustment: Adjust the sample conditions to suit the selected nuclease. Add MgCl₂ to a final concentration of 5 mM. For HL-SAN, add NaCl to create a high-salt environment; for M-SAN HQ, use the sample's physiological salt levels [22].
• Digestion: Add the appropriate nuclease (e.g., 1-2 U of M-SAN HQ per reaction). Incubate at 37°C for 20 minutes [22].
• Downstream Processing: The treated sample can often be used directly in downstream workflows. Some nucleases are heat-labile and can be inactivated if necessary, while others are compatible with subsequent nucleic acid extraction steps without removal [22].

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the logical decision-making process and the key steps involved in selecting and applying the three core pre-extraction methods.

Decision Workflow for Pre-extraction Host Depletion Methods

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of pre-extraction methods relies on specific enzymatic and kit-based reagents. The table below details essential solutions for enabling effective host DNA depletion.

Table 2: Essential Reagents for Host DNA Depletion Workflows

Reagent / Kit Name	Type	Primary Function in Host Depletion	Key Characteristic
Saponin [2]	Detergent	Selective lysis of mammalian cell membranes	Used at low concentrations (0.025%-0.5%); spares microbial cells with robust cell walls [2].
ArcticZymes M-SAN HQ [22]	Nuclease	Degrades host DNA under physiological salt conditions	Preserves fragile viral particles; ideal for unified DNA/RNA pathogen detection from minimal sample processing [22].
ArcticZymes HL-SAN [22]	Nuclease	Degrades host DNA in high-salt buffers	Optimal for chromatin disruption and rapid digestion; suited for bacterial-focused workflows [22].
ZISC-based Filtration Device [4]	Physical Filter	Removes host white blood cells via surface interaction	>99% WBC removal; allows unimpeded passage of bacteria and viruses; reduces labor [4].
HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit [2] [19]	Commercial Kit	Integrated method for host cell removal and DNA depletion	Effective across sample types (sputum, BALF, nasal); significantly increases microbial read counts [2] [19].
QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit [2] [19] [4]	Commercial Kit	Differential lysis of human cells and digestion of DNA	A common benchmark method; performance varies by sample matrix [2] [19].

In shotgun metagenomic sequencing of samples rich in host DNA, the overwhelming abundance of host genetic material can severely limit the depth of microbial sequencing. Post-extraction host DNA depletion methods selectively remove host DNA after nucleic acid extraction from a complex sample, contrasting with pre-extraction methods that remove host cells prior to DNA isolation. Among these, techniques exploiting evolutionarily conserved methylation differences between vertebrate and bacterial genomes present a powerful and cost-effective solution [2] [23].

Vertebrate genomes feature widespread CpG methylation, an epigenetic mark crucial for gene regulation, whereas bacterial genomes generally lack this modification [23]. This fundamental difference provides a biochemical basis for separation. The method utilizes Methyl-CpG-Binding Domain (MBD) proteins to selectively bind and immobilize methylated host DNA, allowing unmethylated microbial DNA to be purified and concentrated for downstream sequencing applications [23] [24]. This approach is particularly valuable for noninvasive sample types such as feces, urine, and respiratory specimens, where host DNA is a major contaminant that would otherwise dominate sequencing libraries [2] [6] [23].

Principle and Comparative Performance

Core Mechanistic Principle

The operational principle of methylation-based enrichment is the selective binding of methylated CpG dinucleotides by the MBD2 protein. The human MBD2 protein is genetically fused to the Fc fragment of human IgG1 (MBD2-Fc), creating a bait protein. This MBD2-Fc fusion protein is then bound to paramagnetic Protein A or streptavidin immunoprecipitation beads, forming a complex that specifically captures double-stranded DNA containing 5-methylcytosine (5mC) [23] [24]. When a DNA mixture from a sample containing both host and microbial cells is applied to this complex, the methylated vertebrate DNA is bound, while the largely unmethylated bacterial DNA remains in solution and can be recovered. This process enriches the microbial component of the sample without requiring species-specific probes or prior knowledge of the microbial community composition.

Performance Comparison with Other Methods

Methylation-based enrichment performs competitively against other host depletion strategies. The following table summarizes key performance metrics from comparative studies.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Host DNA Depletion Methods in Various Sample Types

Method	Principle	Typical Host DNA Reduction	Microbial DNA Yield	Sample Types Validated	Key Advantages
Methylation-Based (MBD2-Fc)	Binds methylated CpG sites	13 to 318-fold enrichment of microbial reads [23]	Varies with starting host proportion; high retention reported	Feces, respiratory samples (BALF) [2] [23]	Cost-effective, non-species-specific, compatible with various library prep methods
NEBNext Microbiome DNA Enrichment	Enzymatic digestion of methylated host DNA	Poor performance in respiratory samples [2]	Not specified	Respiratory samples, Urine [2] [6]	Commercial kit, standardized protocol
QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit	Pre-extraction lysis of host cells	1:5263 to 1.39% microbial reads (55.3-fold increase) in BALF [2]	21% bacterial retention rate in OP samples [2]	Respiratory samples, Urine [2] [6]	Effective host removal, good microbial diversity recovery
Saponin Lysis + Nuclease (S_ase)	Pre-extraction lysis with saponin + nuclease digestion	1:5263 to 1.67% microbial reads (55.8-fold increase) in BALF [2]	Not specified; bacterial biomass reduced [2]	Respiratory samples [2]	High host removal efficiency
Propidium Monoazide (PMA)	Pre-extraction photochemical degradation of free DNA	Least effective (0.09% microbial reads, 2.5-fold increase) [2]	Not specified	Urine [6]	Selective for free DNA, preserves intact cells

Methylation-based enrichment demonstrates particular strength in challenging sample types like feces, where it achieved an average increase in endogenous DNA proportions of 318-fold in optimized protocols, making it a robust choice for samples with very low initial microbial content [23].

Table 2: Microbial Community Analysis Fidelity Across Depletion Methods

Method Category	Effect on Microbial Composition	Taxonomic Bias	Impact on Downstream Analysis
Methylation-Based	Preserves community structure; minimal distortion	Minimal known bias	Enables high-resolution metagenomics and MAG recovery
Pre-extraction Methods (e.g., Saponin, Filtration)	Can significantly alter abundance profiles [2]	Diminishes certain commensals and pathogens (e.g., Prevotella spp., Mycoplasma pneumoniae) [2]	May reduce detection of specific clinically relevant taxa
Commercial Kits (QIAamp, HostZERO)	Varies by kit; some maintain diversity better than others	Kit-specific biases observed	Differential MAG recovery and functional potential assessment

Experimental Protocol for Methylation-Based Enrichment

The following diagram illustrates the complete experimental workflow for methylation-based microbial DNA enrichment:

Detailed Step-by-Step Procedures

DNA Extraction and Fragmentation

Begin with standard nucleic acid extraction from your sample type (e.g., feces, urine, respiratory fluid) using a kit appropriate for the sample matrix. The goal is to obtain high-molecular-weight DNA with minimal fragmentation.

• Input Material: Use 1 µg of sonicated DNA as starting material [24]. While the original protocol uses sonicated DNA, the method is compatible with various fragmentation approaches provided the DNA is in the 150-500 bp range.
• Quality Assessment: Verify DNA quantity using fluorometric methods (e.g., Qubit) and quality via fragment analyzer or agarose gel electrophoresis. A 260/280 ratio of ~1.8 and 260/230 ratio of ~2.0-2.2 indicate pure DNA.

MBD2-Fc Bead Complex Preparation

This step creates the capture matrix that will selectively bind methylated host DNA.

• Reagents: Combine 3.5 µg of MBD-Biotin Protein with M-280 Streptavidin Dynabeads according to manufacturer's instructions [24]. Alternatively, for the MBD2-Fc approach, bind the fusion protein to Protein A magnetic beads.
• Equilibration: Wash the bead complex three times with Bind/Wash Buffer (typically 20 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 1 mM EDTA, 1 M NaCl, 0.5% Triton X-100) to prepare for DNA capture.
• Complex Stability: Keep the bead complex on ice or at 4°C during preparation to maintain protein integrity.

DNA Capture and Microbial DNA Enrichment

This critical step separates methylated (host) from unmethylated (microbial) DNA.

• Incubation Conditions: Incubate the prepared DNA with the MBD2-Fc bead complex at room temperature for 30-60 minutes on a rotator mixer to ensure continuous suspension and maximal binding [23] [24].
• Binding Buffer Optimization: Use a high-salt binding buffer (e.g., 1 M NaCl) to promote specific interaction with highly methylated DNA fragments.
• Separation: After incubation, place the tube on a magnetic stand until the solution clears completely (1-2 minutes).
• Microbial DNA Recovery: Carefully transfer the supernatant containing the enriched, unmethylated microbial DNA to a fresh tube. Avoid disturbing the bead pellet.

Post-Enrichment Processing

• Precipitation: Concentrate the enriched microbial DNA by ethanol precipitation. Add 0.1 volume of 3 M sodium acetate (pH 5.2) and 2 volumes of 100% ethanol. Incubate at -20°C for at least 30 minutes, then centrifuge at maximum speed for 15 minutes.
• Washing: Wash the DNA pellet with 70% ethanol to remove residual salts.
• Resuspension: Resuspend the purified microbial DNA in TE buffer or nuclease-free water.
• Quality Control: Re-quantify the enriched DNA using fluorometric methods and assess fragment size distribution if possible.

Quality Control and Validation

Rigorous QC ensures the success of the enrichment procedure and downstream sequencing.

• qPCR Assessment: Perform quantitative PCR with host-specific and microbial-specific primers to estimate enrichment efficiency. Compare threshold cycles (Ct values) between pre- and post-enrichment samples [23].
• Bioanalyzer/Fragment Analyzer: Run enriched DNA on a bioanalyzer to confirm appropriate fragment size distribution and absence of degradation.
• Sequencing QC: For sequenced libraries, calculate the proportion of reads mapping to host versus microbial genomes. Successful enrichment typically shows a dramatic reduction in host read percentage from >90% to <50%, with ideal results achieving 10-30% host reads [23].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for Methylation-Based Microbial DNA Enrichment

Reagent/Kit	Function	Specific Application Notes
MBP-Biotin Protein or MBD2-Fc Fusion Protein	Selective binding to methylated CpG dinucleotides	Core enrichment reagent; commercial sources available or can be produced recombinantly
Magnetic Beads (Streptavidin or Protein A)	Solid support for MBD complex	Enable separation using magnetic stands
Methyl Miner Kit (Invitrogen)	Commercial methylated DNA capture kit	Validated for MethylCap-seq; can be adapted for microbial enrichment [24]
Bind/Wash Buffer (High Salt)	Create optimal binding conditions for methylated DNA	Typically 1 M NaCl concentration for specific binding
QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit	Alternative pre-extraction method	Useful for comparison; employs different mechanism [2] [6]
NEBNext Microbiome DNA Enrichment Kit	Enzymatic post-extraction depletion method	Uses different principle (methylation-dependent digestion); performance varies by sample type [2] [6]

Optimal Applications and Sample Types

Methylation-based enrichment demonstrates particular utility for specific challenging sample types:

• Feces: Ideal for noninvasive population genomics in wildlife studies or human cohorts where invasive sampling is impractical. Starting host DNA proportions typically range from <0.01% to 17.4% in captive animals and average 0.6% in wild animals [23].
• Respiratory Samples: Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) contains high host DNA content (microbe-to-host read ratio up to 1:5263) [2], making methylation-based enrichment valuable for lower respiratory tract microbiome studies.
• Urine: Effective for urobiome characterization, especially in conditions with high host cell shedding (e.g., urinary tract infections, bladder cancer) [6].
• Other Low-Microbial-Biomass Samples: Applicable to various sample types where host DNA dominates, including saliva, breast milk, and tissue biopsies [6].

Technical Considerations and Limitations

While powerful, researchers should be aware of several methodological considerations:

• Starting DNA Quality: The method requires relatively high-quality, double-stranded DNA. Severely degraded samples may not process efficiently.
• Microbial Methylation: Some bacterial taxa possess their own methylation systems (e.g., Dam, Dcm methylases), which could theoretically lead to unintended depletion of these microbes. However, the CpG methylation pattern characteristic of vertebrate genomes remains distinct.
• Input Requirements: The protocol typically requires microgram quantities of total DNA input, which may be challenging for very low-biomass samples.
• Protocol Optimization: Initial optimization may be needed for specific sample types. Critical parameters include salt concentration during binding, incubation time, and bead-to-DNA ratio [23].

Methylation-based enrichment represents a robust, cost-effective approach for host DNA depletion that leverages fundamental epigenetic differences between vertebrates and bacteria. The method significantly enhances microbial sequencing efficiency without requiring species-specific probes or expensive custom baits, making it particularly valuable for population-level studies and noninvasive sampling approaches. While careful optimization is recommended for new sample types, the protocol provides an accessible pathway to high-quality metagenomic data from challenging host-dominated samples. As sequencing technologies continue to advance, this methylation-based strategy will remain a powerful tool in the microbial genomics toolkit, enabling researchers to explore previously inaccessible microbial communities in host-rich environments.

The success of shotgun metagenomic sequencing in biomarker discovery and host-microbe interaction studies is critically dependent on the initial sample preparation. Inefficient removal of host genetic material can overwhelm sequencing capacity, obscuring microbial signals and reducing the depth of analysis. This article provides optimized, sample-type specific protocols for bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), blood, urine, and tissue, with a particular focus on enhancing host DNA depletion for superior metagenomic sequencing outcomes. Standardizing these pre-analytical procedures is essential for generating reproducible and reliable data in translational research and drug development.

Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid (BALF) Protocols

BALF presents a complex challenge due to the presence of high-abundance host proteins, mucous, and lipids, alongside often limited sample volumes, particularly in paediatric studies.

Optimized Workflow for Proteomic Analysis

A streamlined protocol for mass spectrometry-based proteomics of paediatric BALF demonstrates that simplified workflows can maximize proteome coverage while minimizing hands-on time and sample loss [25].

• Key Steps:
  • Heat Inactivation: For biosafety, supplement BALF with protease inhibitor and heat-treat supernatant at 99°C for 10 minutes [25].
  • Concentration: Use 3 kDa molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) ultrafiltration spin filters at 14,000 × g for 20 minutes [25] [26].
  • Digestion: Digest proteins using an S-Trap micro column, which efficiently captures proteins, removes contaminants, and allows for in-situ tryptic digestion [25] [26].
• Application Note: This simplified workflow, omitting ultracentrifugation and protein depletion, recovered 632 proteins from just 1 mL of paediatric BALF and reduced hands-on time by approximately five hours compared to more complex methods [25].

Host DNA Depletion for Metagenomics

Host DNA can constitute over 99.99% of sequenced material in BALF, making depletion crucial for microbiome studies [2]. A benchmark of seven pre-extraction host depletion methods revealed distinct performance trade-offs.

Table 1: Performance Metrics of Host DNA Depletion Methods for BALF

Method	Host DNA Removal Efficiency	Microbial Read Increase (Fold)	Key Characteristics
Saponin Lysis + Nuclease (S_ase)	99.99% (1.1‱ of original)	55.8x	Highest host removal; may diminish certain pathogens [2]
HostZERO Kit (K_zym)	99.99% (0.9‱ of original)	100.3x	Best for increasing microbial read proportion [2]
Filtering + Nuclease (F_ase)	Data not specified	65.6x	Most balanced performance overall [2]
DNA Microbiome Kit (K_qia)	Data not specified	55.3x	High bacterial retention rate [2]
Nuclease only (R_ase)	Data not specified	16.2x	Highest bacterial DNA retention (median 31%) [2]

• Experimental Protocol for F_ase Method: This balanced method involves filtering the sample through a 10 μm filter, followed by nuclease digestion of the filtrate to degrade exposed host DNA [2].
• Critical Consideration: All host depletion methods can introduce taxonomic bias. For instance, methods like S_ase can significantly diminish commensals such as Prevotella spp. and pathogens like Mycoplasma pneumoniae [2]. The choice of method should be guided by the specific research question.

Blood Sample Protocols

Standardized protocols for blood processing are vital for preserving the integrity of different analytes, including host nucleic acids, proteins, and viable cells for downstream applications.

Pre-analytical Handling and Processing

• Collection Tube Selection:
  • EDTA tubes: Suitable for genomic DNA studies but not recommended for viable peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) isolation [27].
  • Heparin or Citrate tubes: Preferred for PBMC and plasma isolation [27].
  • Serum Tubes: Contain clot activators for serum retrieval [27].
• Post-Collection Handling:
  • Gentle Inversion: Slowly invert tubes 5-10 times to ensure proper mixing with additives and prevent clot formation. Avoid vigorous shaking to prevent hemolysis and cell activation [27].
  • Temperature Control:
    • For plasma protein stability: Maintain samples at 4°C during transport and processing [27].
    • For cell isolation: Maintain at ambient temperature (18-22°C) to ensure optimal viability [27].
  • Processing Time: Initiate processing within 24 hours of collection [27].

Plasma and Cell Isolation

• Plasma Isolation: Centrifuge anticoagulated blood; the resulting supernatant is plasma. Avoid hemolysis and ensure complete mixing with anticoagulant to prevent clots [27].
• PBMC Isolation:
  • Use a Ficoll density gradient of 1.077 g/mL for proper separation [27].
  • Use calcium- and magnesium-free PBS for dilution and washing to prevent unintended immune cell activation [27].
  • Avoid freeze-thaw cycles of isolated cells, as this causes lysis and releases nucleases [27].

Urine Sample Protocols

Urine is a valuable but challenging biospecimen due to its low microbial biomass and variable levels of host cell shedding, which complicate genomic and proteomic analyses.

Optimized Volume and Metagenomic Profiling

For genome-resolved metagenomics of the urobiome, sufficient sample volume is critical to overcome low microbial biomass.

• Minimum Volume: Using ≥ 3.0 mL of urine results in the most consistent microbial community profiles and maximizes metagenome-assembled genome (MAG) recovery [6].
• Host DNA Depletion: For urine samples with high host cell burden, the QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit effectively depleted host DNA while yielding the greatest microbial diversity in both 16S rRNA and shotgun sequencing data [6].

Proteomic Workflow and Pre-analytical Variables

Timing and additives significantly impact urinary protein and metabolite integrity.

• Void Timing: First-morning voids generally contain higher normalized protein concentrations compared to random "spot" voids, making them preferable for proteomic studies [28] [29].
• Additives and Handling:
  • Protease Inhibitors (PI): Significantly improve normalized protein yields, whether samples are immediately cooled or left at room temperature for 4 hours [28] [29].
  • Boric Acid (BA): Does not significantly change protein concentrations and may be unnecessary for samples processed within the same day [28] [29].
• Processing Protocol: Centrifuge urine at 20,000 × g for 30 minutes, discard the supernatant, and use the pellet for DNA extraction [6]. For proteomics, process samples within 4 hours or include protease inhibitors.

Table 2: Impact of Urine Processing Conditions on Protein Yield

Processing Condition	Impact on Normalized Protein Concentration	Recommendation for Proteomics
First-Morning Void	Higher	Collect and standardize void timing [28]
Random Void	Lower	Record timing if used [28]
Protease Inhibitor (PI) Added	Significant improvement	Use PI to enhance yield [28] [29]
Boric Acid (BA) Added	No significant change	Can be omitted for same-day processing [28]
Room Temperature (4 hours)	Maintained with PI	PI protects against short-term RT exposure [28]

Tissue Sample Protocols

Proper tissue processing is fundamental for all downstream molecular analyses, and suboptimal handling is a major source of artifact and irreproducibility.

Core Principles for Optimal Processing

• Fixation:
  • Rapid Fixation: Immerse tissue in fresh, buffered formalin (pH 7.2) immediately after resection to prevent autolysis, which destroys cellular detail [30].
  • Fixative Ratio: Maintain a 20:1 ratio of fixative volume to tissue volume [30].
  • Hollow Organs: Open hollow organs to allow fixative penetration and prevent zonal fixation, where the inner tissue remains unfixed and degrades [30].
• Prosection: Tissue sections placed in cassettes should not exceed 3 mm in thickness to ensure complete fixation and proper processing [30].
• Processing Artifacts to Avoid:
  • Crush Artifact: Caused by blunt forceps during handling; compromises tissue architecture [30].
  • Cauterization: Resulting from surgical resection, which obscures nuclear detail [30].
  • Over-decalcification: From excessive exposure of bone tissue to harsh chemicals, leading to loss of cellular detail and failure in immunohistochemistry [30].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Kits for Sample Processing

Item	Function/Application	Example Use Case
S-Trap Micro Column	Protein trapping, cleanup, and in-situ digestion	Efficient preparation of BALF proteins for LC-MS/MS with minimal contamination [25] [26]
cOmplete Protease Inhibitor	Inhibits serine, cysteine, and metalloproteases	Preserves protein integrity in BALF and urine during collection and storage [25] [28]
Amicon Ultra Filters (3 kDa MWCO)	Concentration and buffer exchange of proteins	Concentrates BALF samples prior to depletion or digestion [25] [26]
HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit	Pre-extraction host DNA depletion	Effectively increases microbial read proportion in BALF metagenomics [2]
QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit	Pre-extraction host DNA depletion	Optimal for host depletion in urine metagenomics, maximizing MAG recovery [6]
Ficoll-Paque Premium	Density gradient medium for cell isolation	Isolation of viable PBMCs from whole blood [27]

The pursuit of robust and reproducible data in shotgun sequencing and other molecular analyses begins at the bench with sample preparation. The protocols detailed herein for BALF, blood, urine, and tissue provide a roadmap for standardizing these critical pre-analytical phases. By carefully selecting and applying these optimized, sample-type specific workflows—particularly the appropriate host DNA depletion strategies—researchers can significantly enhance the sensitivity and reliability of their findings, thereby accelerating discoveries in microbial ecology, biomarker development, and therapeutic innovation.

Shotgun metagenomic sequencing has revolutionized pathogen detection and microbiome research by enabling unbiased analysis of all nucleic acids in a sample. However, a significant challenge, particularly in clinical samples like blood and respiratory secretions, is the overwhelming abundance of host DNA, which can constitute over 99% of the sequenced material, drastically reducing microbial sequencing depth and detection sensitivity [4] [2]. Host DNA depletion methods are therefore critical for enhancing the diagnostic yield of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS). These methods can be broadly categorized into pre-extraction techniques, which physically remove intact host cells or digest cell-free host DNA before microbial DNA extraction, and post-extraction techniques, which selectively remove host DNA based on biochemical properties such as CpG methylation [4] [2]. Among the latest advancements, Zwitterionic Interface Ultra-Self-assemble Coating (ZISC)-based filtration represents a novel pre-extraction approach designed to overcome the limitations of earlier methods, offering superior efficiency and minimal impact on microbial integrity [4].

The ZISC-based filtration device (commercially known as Devin) employs a proprietary zwitterionic coating technology that selectively binds and retains host leukocytes and other nucleated cells on a filter surface. A key innovation of this technology is its ability to prevent filter clogging, a common issue with other filtration methods, regardless of the filter's pore size. This allows for the unimpeded passage of microbial cells, including both bacteria and viruses, into the filtrate [4].

The mechanism of action involves the ultra-self-assembling coating creating a chemical interface that interacts specifically with host cells. Following filtration, the resulting filtrate is enriched with microbial cells and is subsequently processed through high-speed centrifugation to pellet these cells. The pellet then serves as the source for genomic DNA (gDNA) extraction, which is used for downstream mNGS library preparation [4]. This process significantly reduces the background of human DNA, thereby enriching the microbial signal in sequencing data.

Performance Data and Comparative Analysis

Efficacy of Host Cell and Microbial Recovery

The ZISC-based filter has been rigorously tested in spike-in experiments to quantify its efficiency. The table below summarizes its core performance metrics:

Table 1: Analytical Performance of ZISC-Based Filtration

Performance Metric	Result	Experimental Details
White Blood Cell (WBC) Depletion	> 99% removal	Tested across blood volumes of 3-13 mL [4]
Bacterial Passage	Unimpeded passage confirmed	Blood spiked with E. coli, S. aureus, or K. pneumoniae at 10⁴ CFU/mL [4]
Viral Passage	Unimpeded passage confirmed	Blood spiked with feline coronavirus; quantified via qPCR [4]
Microbial Read Enrichment (gDNA-based mNGS)	9,351 RPM (average)	Over tenfold higher than unfiltered samples (925 RPM) [4]
Pathogen Detection in Clinical Sepsis Samples	100% (8/8)	Detected all blood culture-positive pathogens [4]

Comparison with Alternative Host Depletion Methods

A critical study compared the ZISC-based method with other established host depletion techniques using a spiked blood sample. The results, summarized below, highlight the comparative advantages of the ZISC approach.

Table 2: Comparison of Host Depletion Methods for mNGS

Method	Technology Type	Key Findings	Practical Considerations
ZISC-based Filtration	Pre-extraction (Physical)	Most efficient host depletion; highest microbial read preservation; no alteration of microbial composition [4]	Less labor-intensive
QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit	Pre-extraction (Differential Lysis)	Moderate performance in microbial retention for respiratory and urine samples [2] [6]	—
NEBNext Microbiome DNA Enrichment Kit	Post-extraction (CpG Methylation)	Poor performance in removing host DNA from respiratory and other sample types [4] [2]	—
Zymo HostZERO	Pre-extraction	High host DNA removal efficiency in respiratory samples, but may introduce taxonomic bias [2]	—
Saponin Lysis + Nuclease (S_ase)	Pre-extraction (Chemical/Enzymatic)	High host DNA removal efficiency, but can significantly diminish specific commensals and pathogens (e.g., Prevotella spp., Mycoplasma pneumoniae) [2]	—

Detailed Application Notes and Protocols

Protocol: gDNA-based mNGS from Whole Blood Using ZISC-Based Host Depletion

Application: This protocol is designed for the detection of bloodstream pathogens in suspected sepsis cases using gDNA derived from whole blood. It is optimized for a sample volume of 4 mL of whole blood [4].

Workflow Overview:

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Sample Preparation: Using a sterile syringe, transfer approximately 4 mL of fresh, anti-coagulated whole blood. It is critical to process samples fresh for optimal results; do not freeze prior to filtration [4].
• Host Cell Depletion: Securely connect the syringe containing the blood sample to the novel ZISC-based fractionation filter. Gently depress the syringe plunger to pass the entire blood sample through the filter. Collect the filtrate in a sterile 15 mL Falcon tube. This step removes >99% of host white blood cells [4].
• Plasma Separation: Subject the filtered blood to low-speed centrifugation at 400 × g for 15 minutes at room temperature to separate the plasma from any residual cellular components [4].
• Microbial Pellet Isolation: Carefully transfer the plasma supernatant to a new microcentrifuge tube. Perform high-speed centrifugation at 16,000 × g to pellet microbial cells. The required centrifugation time was not specified in the source and should be optimized by the user (e.g., 30 minutes is a common starting point) [4].
• DNA Extraction: Discard the supernatant and resuspend the pellet. Proceed with genomic DNA extraction using a dedicated microbial DNA extraction kit, such as the ZISC-based Microbial DNA Enrichment Kit or a suitable alternative, following the manufacturer's instructions [4].
• Library Preparation and Sequencing: Construct mNGS libraries from the extracted gDNA. The cited study used the Ultra-Low Library Prep Kit (Micronbrane) and sequenced on an Illumina NovaSeq 6000, aiming for a minimum of 10 million reads per sample. Data analysis is performed using a customized bioinformatics pipeline [4].

Critical Protocol Parameters and Optimization

• Sample Volume: The protocol has been validated for blood volumes ranging from 3 mL to 13 mL, with consistent >99% WBC depletion [4]. For other sample types, such as urine, studies suggest that a minimum volume of 3.0 mL is necessary for consistent microbiome profiling [6].
• Sample Freshness: The clinical validation was performed on fresh blood samples. The impact of frozen storage on filtration efficiency was not evaluated and is not recommended [4].
• Internal Controls: The use of an internal reference control, such as the ZymoBIOMICS Spike-in Control, is strongly recommended to monitor microbial recovery and the efficacy of the entire workflow [4].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

The following table lists key reagents and kits used in the development and validation of ZISC-based filtration and other host depletion methods.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Host Depletion mNGS

Item Name	Function / Application	Reference
Devin Filtration Device (Micronbrane)	Novel ZISC-based filter for depleting host leukocytes from whole blood.	[4]
ZISC-based Microbial DNA Enrichment Kit	DNA extraction kit designed for use with the filtration device.	[4]
QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit (Qiagen)	Pre-extraction method using differential lysis to remove human cells.	[4] [2] [6]
HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit (Zymo Research)	Pre-extraction commercial kit for host DNA depletion.	[2] [6]
NEBNext Microbiome DNA Enrichment Kit (NEB)	Post-extraction method that enriches microbial DNA by removing methylated host DNA.	[4] [2] [6]
MolYsis Basic/Complete5 (Molzym)	Pre-extraction commercial kit series for host DNA depletion.	[6]
ZymoBIOMICS Spike-in Controls	Defined microbial communities used as internal controls to assess workflow performance.	[4]

The integration of novel ZISC-based filtration into the mNGS workflow represents a significant advancement for clinical metagenomics, particularly in sepsis diagnostics. Its primary strength lies in its ability to efficiently deplete host DNA without compromising the integrity or composition of the microbial community, leading to a greater than tenfold enrichment of microbial reads and 100% detection of pathogens in a clinical cohort [4]. This performance surpasses that of both unfiltered gDNA and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) approaches, the latter of which showed inconsistent sensitivity and was not significantly improved by filtration [4].

When selecting a host depletion method, researchers must consider the inherent trade-offs. While methods like saponin lysis (S_ase) and the HostZERO kit can achieve high host DNA removal, they may introduce taxonomic biases by damaging specific, often fragile, microorganisms, thereby altering the perceived microbial abundance [2]. The ZISC-based method demonstrates a more balanced profile, offering high efficiency with minimal bias. Furthermore, the choice between gDNA and cfDNA is critical. The gDNA from microbial pellets, which is amenable to pre-extraction enrichment methods like ZISC filtration, provides a more robust template for reliable pathogen detection in sepsis than cfDNA from plasma [4].

In conclusion, ZISC-based host depletion is a powerful and valuable tool that enhances the analytical sensitivity of shotgun metagenomics. Its application promises to improve diagnostic accuracy not only in sepsis but also in other infectious disease contexts where high host background impedes microbial detection.

Optimizing Performance and Overcoming Technical Pitfalls

Shotgun metagenomic sequencing has revolutionized our ability to profile microbial communities, offering unparalleled taxonomic resolution and functional insights. However, in samples dominated by host DNA—such as respiratory secretions, tissue biopsies, and milk—the overwhelming abundance of host genetic material severely limits sequencing efficiency for microbial targets. Host DNA depletion methods have emerged as a critical solution, yet they present a double-edged sword: while significantly enhancing microbial read recovery, they can also introduce substantial biases that alter observed community structure and composition. This application note examines the efficiency and taxonomic biases of current host depletion methodologies, providing structured experimental protocols and analytical frameworks to guide researchers in selecting and optimizing these methods for diverse sample types.

Performance Benchmarking: Efficiency and Bias Across Methods

Comparative Efficiency of Host Depletion Methods

Table 1: Performance Metrics of Host Depletion Methods Across Sample Types

Method	Principle	Host Reduction (Orders of Magnitude)	Microbial Read Increase (Fold)	Key Limitations
Saponin Lysis + Nuclease (S_ase)	Selective lysis of mammalian cells with saponin followed by DNase digestion	3-4 orders [2]	55.8x (BALF) [2]	Significant reduction in bacterial biomass; diminishes specific pathogens (e.g., Mycoplasma pneumoniae) [2]
HostZERO (K_zym)	Commercial kit (undisclosed mechanism)	3-4 orders [2]	100.3x (BALF) [2]	Introduces contamination; alters microbial abundance [2]
Filtration + Nuclease (F_ase)	Size-based separation of microbial cells followed by DNase treatment	1-4 orders [2]	65.6x (BALF) [2]	Demonstrated most balanced performance in respiratory samples [2]
QIAamp DNA Microbiome (K_qia)	Selective lysis and enzymatic degradation	Not quantified	55.3x (BALF) [2]	Efficient for Gram-positive bacteria but may underrepresent Gram-negatives in frozen samples [19]
Osmotic Lysis + Nuclease (O_ase)	Hypotonic lysis of mammalian cells with DNase	1-4 orders [2]	25.4x (BALF) [2]	Moderate efficiency compared to other methods [2]
Nuclease Digestion (R_ase)	DNase treatment of free DNA without pre-treatment	1-4 orders [2]	16.2x (BALF) [2]	Highest bacterial retention rate (31% in BALF) but lower host depletion [2]
Osmotic Lysis + PMA (O_pma)	Hypotonic lysis with photoactivatable DNA cross-linker	1-4 orders [2]	2.5x (BALF) [2]	Least effective for increasing microbial reads; requires optimization for sample type [2] [31]
MolYsis Complete5	Selective microbial DNA enrichment	Not quantified	100x (sputum) [19]	Library prep failure in some respiratory samples; may impact Gram-negative viability in frozen samples [19]

Taxonomic Biases Introduced by Depletion Methods

Host depletion methods do not uniformly preserve all microbial taxa, introducing significant distortions in community representation:

• Gram-status biases: Methods such as QIAamp-based depletion minimally impact Gram-negative bacterial viability in frozen isolates, whereas other methods may disproportionately affect Gram-positive organisms [19]. In milk samples, the MolYsis Complete5 kit introduced the fewest taxonomic biases compared to alternative approaches [32].

• Specific pathogen depletion: Certain commensals and pathogens, including Prevotella spp. and Mycoplasma pneumoniae, are significantly diminished by some host depletion protocols, potentially creating false negatives in clinical diagnostics [2].

• Viability-associated biases: Methods incorporating propidium monoazide (PMA), which selectively cross-links DNA from membrane-compromised cells, may underrepresent non-viable microbes, potentially skewing community profiles toward intact organisms [31] [33].

Method Selection and Optimization Guidelines

Sample-Type-Specific Recommendations

Table 2: Optimal Host Depletion Methods by Sample Type

Sample Type	Recommended Methods	Methods to Avoid	Special Considerations
Respiratory (BALF)	HostZERO, Sase, Fase [2]	O_pma (low efficiency) [2]	BALF contains high host DNA (median 99.7%) and high proportion of cell-free microbial DNA (68.97%) [2]
Respiratory (Sputum)	MolYsis, HostZERO, QIAamp [19]	None specifically contraindicated	Natural cryoprotectant properties may affect method efficiency [19]
Milk	MolYsis Complete5 [32]	NEBNext Microbiome Enrichment (higher host reads) [32]	Bovine somatic cells outnumber bacterial cells ~10:1; host genome ~1000x larger than bacterial genomes [33]
Bovine Vaginal	Soft-spin + QIAamp [31]	NEBNext + QIAamp (low DNA yield) [31]	Soft-spin centrifugation most effective for reducing host content [31]
Urine	QIAamp DNA Microbiome [6]	Not specified	≥3.0 mL urine volume recommended for consistent profiling [6]
Intestinal Tissue	NEBNext, QIAamp [8]	Not specified	Additional detergents and bead-beating improve efficacy [8]

Impact of Pre-analytical Factors

• Cryopreservation: Freezing without cryoprotectants reduces viability of certain bacteria (Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter spp.), impacting molecular assays. Adding 25% glycerol before freezing preserves microbial viability [2] [19].

• Sample volume: For low-biomass samples like urine, volumes ≥3.0 mL provide the most consistent urobiome profiling [6].

• Cell-free DNA: Respiratory samples contain substantial cell-free microbial DNA (68.97% in BALF, 79.60% in oropharyngeal swabs), which may be removed by pre-extraction methods targeting intact cells [2].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Filtration + Nuclease (F_ase) Method for Respiratory Samples

Developed and optimized as reported in npj Biofilms and Microbiomes [2]

• Sample Preparation:

  • Mix respiratory samples (BALF or oropharyngeal swab media) with 25% glycerol for cryopreservation
  • Centrifuge at 500 × g for 10 minutes to pellet host cells while keeping microbes in suspension

• Filtration and Digestion:

  • Pass supernatant through 10 μm filter unit to capture host cells while allowing microbial passage
  • Collect filtrate and add DNase I (1 U/μL final concentration) with MgCl₂ (5 mM final concentration)
  • Incubate at 37°C for 30 minutes to degrade free-floating host DNA
  • Stop reaction with EDTA (10 mM final concentration)

• Microbial Recovery:

  • Concentrate microbial cells by centrifugation at 16,000 × g for 30 minutes
  • Proceed to DNA extraction using preferred microbial DNA extraction kit

Soft-Spin Centrifugation + QIAamp for Bovine Vaginal Samples

Optimized protocol from Microbiology Spectrum [31]

• Host Cell Depletion:

  • Resuspend vaginal swab in 1 mL phosphate-buffered saline (PBS)
  • Centrifuge at 200 × g for 10 minutes (soft-spin) to pellet host cells while leaving microbes in suspension
  • Transfer supernatant to new tube, avoiding disturbance of pellet

• Microbial DNA Extraction:

  • Concentrate microbial cells from supernatant by centrifugation at 16,000 × g for 30 minutes
  • Extract DNA using QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit according to manufacturer instructions
  • Include optional lysozyme incubation (10 mg/mL, 37°C for 30 minutes) for Gram-positive bacteria

• Quality Assessment:

  • Quantify DNA using fluorometric methods
  • Verify host depletion via qPCR targeting single-copy host gene (e.g., β-actin)
  • Assess microbial content with 16S rRNA gene qPCR

Workflow Visualization: Host Depletion Strategies

Figure 1: Host DNA depletion workflow strategies. Pre-extraction methods separate microbial cells from host material prior to DNA extraction, while post-extraction methods selectively remove host DNA from total extracted nucleic acids.

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Methods

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Host DNA Depletion

Product/Reagent	Manufacturer	Principle/Method	Applications	Considerations
HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit	Zymo Research	Undisclosed proprietary method	Respiratory samples, sputum [19]	Highest microbial read increase in BALF (100.3x) [2]
QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit	Qiagen	Selective lysis and enzymatic degradation	Bovine vaginal, urine, intestinal samples [31] [6]	Effective for Gram-positive bacteria; requires optimization [31]
MolYsis Complete5	Molzym	Selective lysis and degradation of host DNA	Milk, respiratory samples [19] [32]	Best performance for milk microbiome; minimal taxonomic bias [32]
NEBNext Microbiome DNA Enrichment Kit	New England Biolabs	Methylation-based capture of host DNA	Intestinal tissue samples [8]	Poor performance for respiratory samples [2]
Propidium Monoazide (PMA)	Multiple suppliers	Photoactivatable DNA cross-linker for compromised cells	Urine, bovine vaginal samples [31] [6]	Selectively targets non-viable cells; may introduce viability bias [33]
Saponin-based depletion	Laboratory-prepared	Selective lysis of mammalian cell membranes	Respiratory samples [2]	Optimal at 0.025% concentration; significantly reduces host DNA [2]

Host DNA depletion methods substantially improve microbial sequencing depth in host-dominated samples, yet introduce measurable biases that vary by method and sample type. The optimal approach balances efficiency with taxonomic preservation: F_ase demonstrates balanced performance for respiratory samples, MolYsis excels for milk, and soft-spin centrifugation with QIAamp extraction works best for bovine vaginal samples. Researchers must validate their selected method using mock communities and sample-specific optimization to ensure accurate microbial community profiling. As method development continues, standardization of validation protocols across diverse sample matrices will be essential for advancing microbiome research and its translation into clinical and industrial applications.

Mitigating Contamination in Low-Biomass Samples and Negative Controls

The study of low microbial biomass environments represents a frontier in microbiome research, enabling exploration of previously inaccessible microbial niches from human tissues to extreme environments. These environments—including certain human tissues (respiratory tract, fetal tissues, urine, bovine milk), the atmosphere, hyper-arid soils, treated drinking water, and the deep subsurface—harbor minimal microbial life, often approaching the detection limits of standard DNA-based sequencing methods [34]. The primary challenge in investigating these ecosystems is the proportionality of contamination: even minute amounts of contaminating DNA from external sources can drastically distort results and lead to spurious conclusions [34] [35]. This technical concern has sparked contentious debates in the field, particularly regarding the existence of microbiomes in environments such as the human placenta, blood, and brain, where subsequent controlled studies revealed that initial findings likely represented contamination rather than true biological signal [34] [35].

The growing recognition of this problem has led to concerted efforts to establish rigorous methodologies. Recent analyses reveal that contamination control remains inadequately addressed across many research domains, with one systematic review finding that two-thirds of insect microbiota studies published over a decade failed to include essential negative controls [36]. This application note provides a comprehensive framework for mitigating contamination throughout the research workflow, with particular emphasis on its critical role in host DNA depletion strategies for shotgun metagenomic sequencing.

Core Principles for Contamination Mitigation

Contamination in low-biomass studies manifests primarily through two mechanisms: contaminant DNA originating from reagents, kits, laboratory environments, and researchers; and cross-contamination between samples during processing [35]. The impact of these contaminants is proportional to the native microbial biomass, with low-biomass samples being most vulnerable to signal distortion [34] [35].

The table below summarizes the primary contamination sources and their proportional impacts across sample types:

Table 1: Primary Contamination Sources and Their Impacts in Low-Biomass Studies

Contamination Source	Examples	Most Affected Sample Types	Potential Impact on Data Interpretation
Reagents & Kits	DNA extraction kits, PCR master mixes, water [35] [37]	All low-biomass samples [35]	False positive taxa; distorted community structure [35] [37]
Laboratory Environment	Airborne particles, laboratory surfaces [34] [35]	Samples processed in non-sterile environments [34]	Introduction of environmental bacteria misinterpreted as native [34]
Research Personnel	Skin cells, hair, respiratory droplets [34]	Clinical samples, sterile tissues [34]	Human-associated taxa falsely attributed to sample [34]
Cross-Contamination	Well-to-well leakage during PCR, sample carryover [34] [35]	High-throughput processing of sample batches [34]	Reduced reproducibility; false similarities between dissimilar samples [34]
Host DNA	Human/cell-free DNA in host-associated samples [2] [6]	Respiratory samples, urine, milk, tissue biopsies [2] [6] [38]	Overwhelming of microbial sequences in shotgun metagenomics [2]

The consequences of uncontrolled contamination are not merely technical but have substantively impacted research conclusions. Controversies surrounding the "placental microbiome" exemplify this challenge, where initial findings of a distinct microbial community were later attributed to contamination when proper controls were implemented [34] [35]. Similarly, studies of the upper atmosphere and deep subsurface have been questioned due to potential contamination issues [34]. Beyond false positives, contamination can obscure true biological signals, distort ecological patterns, and fundamentally misdirect research trajectories [34] [35].

Foundational Mitigation Strategies Across the Workflow

Effective contamination control requires a proactive, multi-layered approach integrated throughout the entire research workflow—from initial study design to final data interpretation.

Sample Collection and Handling: During sampling, implement stringent decontamination protocols for all equipment, tools, and collection vessels. Where possible, use single-use, DNA-free materials. For reusable equipment, decontamination should involve treatment with 80% ethanol to kill microorganisms followed by nucleic acid degrading solutions (e.g., sodium hypochlorite, UV-C light, hydrogen peroxide) to remove residual DNA [34]. Personal protective equipment (PPE) including gloves, masks, coveralls, and shoe covers creates essential barriers between samples and researchers, reducing contamination from human skin, hair, and respiratory droplets [34].

Laboratory Processing: In the laboratory, maintain strict separation between pre- and post-PCR areas to prevent amplicon contamination. Use dedicated equipment and workspaces for low-biomass samples, and employ ultraviolet irradiation of workspaces and reagents when practical [34]. Consistency in reagent batches, particularly DNA extraction kits, is crucial as contaminant profiles can vary significantly between lots [37]. When processing samples, include randomized blank controls throughout extraction and amplification batches to monitor for cross-contamination [34] [36].

Experimental Design: Perhaps most critically, incorporate comprehensive negative controls from the initial sampling stage. These should include collection controls (e.g., empty collection vessels, swabs exposed to sampling environment air, aliquots of preservation solutions) that accompany samples through all processing steps [34]. The number and type of controls should be sufficient to accurately characterize the contamination background, with multiple controls recommended to account for potential stochastic contamination events [34].

Host DNA Depletion Methods: Comparative Analysis and Protocols

In host-associated low-biomass samples, the overwhelming abundance of host DNA presents a dual challenge: it consumes sequencing depth and obscures microbial signals. Host depletion methods specifically address this issue through physical, chemical, or enzymatic approaches.

Method Categories and Working Principles

Host DNA depletion strategies fall into two primary categories:

• Pre-extraction Methods: These techniques selectively lyse host cells while preserving microbial cells, followed by degradation of released host DNA before microbial DNA extraction. Approaches include differential lysis using detergents (e.g., saponin), osmotic stress, filtration, or enzymatic treatments [2] [13].

• Post-extraction Methods: These methods selectively remove host DNA after total DNA extraction, typically leveraging differential methylation patterns (e.g., human DNA is more heavily methylated than microbial DNA) [2] [6].

The following diagram illustrates the decision pathway for selecting and implementing host DNA depletion methods:

Comparative Performance Across Sample Types

Recent benchmarking studies have quantitatively evaluated host depletion methods across different low-biomass sample types, revealing method-specific advantages and limitations.

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Host DNA Depletion Methods Across Sample Types

Method Category	Specific Method	Host Depletion Efficiency	Microbial DNA Retention	Key Limitations	Optimal Application Context
Pre-extraction: Enzymatic	Saponin lysis + nuclease (S_ase) [2]	High (to 0.01% of original) [2]	Moderate (varies by sample) [2]	Diminishes certain pathogens (e.g., Mycoplasma pneumoniae) [2]	Respiratory samples (BALF, OP) with intact cells [2]
Pre-extraction: Filtration	Filtering + nuclease (F_ase) [2]	High (65.6-fold microbial read increase) [2]	Good (preserves diverse taxa) [2]	May lose larger microbial cells; requires optimization [2]	BALF samples where taxonomic preservation is critical [2]
Pre-extraction: Commercial Kits	HostZERO (K_zym) [2]	Very High (100.3-fold microbial read increase) [2]	Variable (method-dependent) [2]	Potential taxonomic bias; cost [2] [6]	Urine, respiratory samples when maximum depletion needed [2] [6]
Pre-extraction: Commercial Kits	QIAamp DNA Microbiome (K_qia) [2] [6]	High (55.3-fold microbial read increase) [2]	Good (21-100% retention) [2] [6]	Potential taxonomic bias; cost [2] [6]	Urine, milk samples seeking balance of yield/depletion [6] [38]
Post-extraction	NEBNext Microbiome DNA Enrichment [2] [6]	Low to Moderate [2]	High (retains cell-free DNA) [2]	Inefficient for respiratory samples [2]	Samples with high cell-free microbial DNA [2]

Detailed Protocol: Integrated Host Depletion and Contamination Control

The following protocol outlines a comprehensive approach for processing low-biomass respiratory samples (BALF and oropharyngeal swabs), incorporating both host depletion and contamination control measures based on recently benchmarked methods [2].

Sample Preparation and Host Depletion Using Filtration + Nuclease (F_ase) Method:

• Sample Preservation: Immediately after collection, add 25% glycerol to samples and store at -80°C until processing. This cryopreservation step maintains microbial cell integrity [2].
• Initial Processing: Thaw samples on ice and centrifuge at 4°C to pellet cells and debris.
• Host Cell Depletion: Resuspend pellets in appropriate buffer and pass through 10μm filters. This physical separation step retains larger host cells while allowing most microbial cells to pass through [2].
• Host DNA Digestion: Treat filtrate with benzonase or similar nuclease enzyme to degrade free-floating host DNA released during filtration. Use optimal enzyme concentrations determined through preliminary titration (e.g., 10-50 U/mL) [2].
• Microbial DNA Extraction: Proceed with standard microbial DNA extraction using bead beating for comprehensive cell lysis. Maintain consistency by using the same batch of extraction kits throughout a study to minimize batch-specific contamination [37].

Critical Controls and Quality Assessment:

• Negative Controls: Include multiple negative controls throughout the process: sterile saline processed through identical collection methods, unused swabs, and DNA extraction blanks [34] [2].
• Efficiency Assessment: Quantify host DNA depletion using host-specific qPCR assays (e.g., targeting human β-globin gene). Successful depletion should reduce host DNA by 1-4 orders of magnitude [2].
• Microbial Integrity Check: Assess bacterial DNA retention using universal 16S rRNA gene qPCR. Optimal methods should retain at least 20% of original microbial DNA, though this varies significantly by sample type [2].

Experimental Design and Validation Framework

The Essential Role of Negative Controls

Negative controls are not merely quality checks but fundamental analytical components that enable statistical discrimination between true signal and contamination. The minimal recommended controls include:

• Field/Collection Blanks: Exposed to sampling environment but contain no sample [34]
• Extraction Blanks: Reagents processed without sample [35] [37]
• PCR Blanks: Water or buffer instead of DNA template [36]
• Method-Specific Controls: For host depletion studies, include samples with known microbial compositions (mock communities) to assess methodological bias [2] [6]

Recent data demonstrates that when validated protocols with internal negative controls are used, residual contamination has minimal impact on core statistical outcomes like beta diversity, though it may affect the number of differentially abundant taxa detected [39].

Determining Limits of Detection

For quantitative applications, establish the limit of detection (LoD) using quantitative PCR to measure absolute abundances in all samples and negative controls. The average abundance in negative controls serves as the LoD threshold; biological samples falling below this threshold should be interpreted with caution or excluded as they do not contain sufficient "true" DNA above background contamination [36].

Statistical Contamination Identification

Bioinformatic tools such as Decontam [6] provide statistically rigorous methods to identify putative contaminants based on their prevalence and/or frequency in negative controls compared to true samples. These tools allow for reproducible, data-driven contamination removal rather than subjective manual filtering.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful low-biomass research requires careful selection and consistent application of specialized reagents and materials throughout the experimental workflow.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Low-Biomass Studies

Category	Specific Product/Kit	Primary Function	Key Considerations
Host Depletion Kits	QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit [2] [6]	Selective host cell lysis and DNA degradation	Effective for urine, respiratory samples; maximizes MAG recovery [6]
Host Depletion Kits	HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit [2]	Comprehensive host DNA removal	Highest host depletion efficiency; potential taxonomic bias [2]
DNA Extraction Kits	QIAamp BiOstic Bacteremia Kit [6]	Microbial DNA extraction without host depletion	Baseline comparator; suitable for samples with minimal host DNA [6]
Contamination Control Reagents	Sodium hypochlorite (bleach) [34]	Surface and equipment decontamination	Effective DNA degradation; must be prepared fresh and used at appropriate concentrations
Contamination Control Reagents	Propidium Monoazide (PMA) [2] [6]	Selective degradation of free DNA	Can be combined with lysis methods; optimize concentration (e.g., 10μM) [2]
Nuclease Reagents	Benzonase, DNase I [2] [13]	Degradation of free-floating host DNA	Critical for pre-extraction methods; requires optimization to preserve microbial cells [2]
Specialized Consumables	DNA-free swabs, collection tubes [34]	Sample collection and storage	Single-use, pre-sterilized materials minimize introduction of contaminants
Bioinformatic Tools	Decontam [6]	Statistical contaminant identification	Prevalence- or frequency-based methods; requires sequencing of negative controls

Mitigating contamination in low-biomass microbiome studies requires integrated methodological rigor throughout the entire research workflow—from experimental design through sample collection, wet laboratory processing, and bioinformatic analysis. Host DNA depletion methods, particularly pre-extraction approaches like filtration with nuclease treatment or optimized commercial kits, dramatically improve microbial sequence recovery in host-associated samples. However, these methods introduce their own biases and must be carefully validated for each sample type.

The most critical element remains the consistent implementation of comprehensive negative controls that accompany samples through all processing stages. When combined with rigorous laboratory practices and appropriate bioinformatic contamination removal, these approaches enable valid and reproducible investigation of even the most challenging low-biomass environments. As the field advances, adherence to these principles will be essential for building an accurate understanding of microbial communities in these delicate ecosystems.

Addressing the Cell-Free DNA Challenge in Plasma and Other Samples

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) has emerged as a transformative biomarker in clinical diagnostics and research, enabling non-invasive detection and monitoring of conditions such as cancer, transplant rejection, and inflammatory diseases [40] [41]. Unlike cellular DNA, cfDNA consists of short fragments circulating in body fluids, originating from apoptotic or necrotic cells [41]. However, the accurate analysis of cfDNA, particularly in shotgun metagenomic sequencing, is hampered by the overwhelming presence of background host DNA, which can constitute over 90% of total DNA in samples like plasma, urine, and saliva [42] [43]. This high host-to-microbial DNA ratio drastically reduces sequencing efficiency and increases costs, as the majority of sequencing reads are consumed by host-derived material rather than the target microbial or pathogen-derived cfDNA [2] [21].

Host DNA depletion methods have been developed to address this challenge, employing various strategies to selectively remove host DNA while preserving the microbial cfDNA fraction. These methods are particularly crucial for low-microbial-biomass samples where the signal-to-noise ratio is inherently unfavorable [6]. The removal of host DNA not only improves microbial sequencing depth but also reduces biases in phylogenetic analysis introduced by extracellular bacterial DNA, enabling more accurate characterization of viable microbial communities and their functional potential [21]. This application note provides a comprehensive overview of current methodologies, performance comparisons, and detailed protocols for effective cfDNA enrichment in complex clinical samples.

Comparative Performance of Host Depletion Methods

Efficiency Across Sample Types

Multiple studies have systematically evaluated host DNA depletion methods across different sample matrices, demonstrating significant variability in performance depending on the sample origin and methodological approach. In respiratory samples, a comprehensive benchmarking study evaluating seven pre-extraction host DNA depletion methods using bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and oropharyngeal swab (OP) samples found that all methods significantly increased microbial reads, species richness, gene richness, and genome coverage while reducing host DNA by one to four orders of magnitude [2].

The saponin lysis followed by nuclease digestion (Sase) and HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit (Kzym) methods demonstrated particularly high host DNA removal efficiency in BALF samples, reducing human DNA to 493.82 pg/mL (0.011‰ of original concentration) and 396.60 pg/mL (0.009‰), respectively [2]. In saliva samples, treatment with Benzonase Nuclease following osmotic lysis reduced the host-aligned fraction from 87% in untreated samples to 30%, significantly enhancing microbial taxa identification, including previously undetected viral taxa [42].

For urinary samples, which present unique challenges due to low microbial biomass and variable host cell shedding, the QIAamp DNA Microbiome kit yielded the greatest microbial diversity in both 16S rRNA and shotgun metagenomic sequencing data, while effectively depleting host DNA in host-spiked urine samples [6]. This method also maximized metagenome-assembled genome (MAG) recovery, enabling more comprehensive functional analysis of the urobiome [6].

Table 1: Performance Metrics of Host Depletion Methods Across Sample Types

Method	Mechanism	Sample Types Validated	Host Depletion Efficiency	Microbial DNA Recovery	Key Advantages
Saponin + Nuclease (S_ase)	Selective lysis of human cells with saponin + DNA digestion	BALF, OP samples	493.82 pg/mL residual host DNA in BALF (0.011‰ of original) [2]	Moderate retention	Most balanced performance for respiratory samples [2]
HostZERO Kit (K_zym)	Selective eukaryotic cell lysis + DNA degradation	Saliva, swabs, bodily fluids [44]	<1% host DNA in saliva (from 65% untreated) [44]	High recovery (>85% bacterial DNA) [44]	Fast processing (30 min hands-on time) [44]
Benzonase Nuclease	Hypotonic lysis + endonuclease digestion	Saliva, sputum [42] [21]	87% to 30% host DNA in saliva [42]	Enhanced viral taxa identification [42]	Effective against extracellular DNA [21]
QIAamp DNA Microbiome	Selective lysis + enzymatic degradation	Urine, respiratory samples [2] [6]	Effective host depletion in urine [6]	Highest microbial diversity in urine samples [6]	Optimal for MAG recovery [6]
Filtration + Nuclease (F_ase)	Size-based separation + digestion	BALF, OP samples [2]	1.57% microbial reads in BALF (65.6-fold increase) [2]	High bacterial retention	Balanced performance for respiratory samples [2]

Impact on Sequencing Efficiency and Taxonomic Bias

Host depletion methods substantially improve sequencing efficiency by increasing the proportion of microbial reads, thereby reducing the sequencing depth required for comprehensive microbiome analysis. In respiratory samples, the Kzym method showed the best performance in increasing microbial reads (2.66% of total reads after host DNA depletion, representing a 100.3-fold increase compared to untreated samples), followed by Sase (1.67%, 55.8-fold), and F_ase (1.57%, 65.6-fold) [2].

However, these methods may introduce taxonomic biases that affect the representation of certain microbial groups. Some commensals and pathogens, including Prevotella spp. and Mycoplasma pneumoniae, were significantly diminished by various depletion methods [2]. This highlights the importance of method selection based on the specific research questions and target microorganisms.

The presence of extracellular bacterial DNA, particularly abundant in biofilm-associated infections, represents another significant challenge. Methods that incorporate nuclease digestion effectively remove this extracellular DNA, providing a more accurate representation of viable microbial communities. In cystic fibrosis sputum samples, a combination of hypotonic lysis and nuclease digestion most effectively reduced both human and extracellular microbial DNA, increasing effective microbial sequencing depth and minimizing bias in phylogenetic analysis [21].

Table 2: Impact on Sequencing Metrics and Microbial Detection

Method	Microbial Read Increase	Species Richness	Gene Richness	Taxonomic Biases	Extracellular DNA Depletion
K_zym	100.3-fold in BALF [2]	Significantly increased [2]	Significantly increased [2]	Some commensals/pathogens diminished [2]	Moderate [44]
S_ase	55.8-fold in BALF [2]	Significantly increased [2]	Significantly increased [2]	Prevotella spp. and Mycoplasma pneumoniae diminished [2]	High (includes nuclease step) [2]
Benzonase	Not quantified	Increased number of microbial taxa identified [42]	Not specified	Enhanced viral taxa detection [42]	High [21]
QIAamp DNA Microbiome	Not quantified	Greatest microbial diversity in urine [6]	Enhanced functional profiling [6]	Individual-driven not method-driven [6]	Moderate
F_ase	65.6-fold in BALF [2]	Significantly increased [2]	Significantly increased [2]	Least biased among methods [2]	High (includes nuclease step) [2]

Methodologies and Protocols

Benzonase Nuclease Protocol for Saliva and Sputum Samples

The Benzonase-based depletion method effectively removes host DNA through hypotonic lysis of human cells followed by enzymatic degradation of exposed DNA [21]. This protocol has been optimized for saliva and sputum samples, which typically contain high proportions of host DNA.

Reagents and Equipment:

• Benzonase Nuclease (e.g., Millipore E1014-5KU)
• Molecular grade water
• MgCl₂ (2 mM final concentration)
• DNA extraction kit (e.g., MagMAX Multi-Sample Ultra 2.0 Kit)
• Microcentrifuge
• Vortex mixer
• 37°C incubator or water bath

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation: Use fresh samples whenever possible. Freezing and thawing cycles can lyse bacteria, releasing bacterial DNA that will be degraded by Benzonase. If using frozen samples, add a cryoprotectant such as 20% glycerol before freezing to reduce cell lysis [42].
• Osmotic Lysis: Combine 200μl aliquots of sample with molecular grade water to create hypotonic conditions. Incubate for 15 minutes at room temperature to lyse mammalian cells while preserving microbial cells with intact cell walls.
• Nuclease Treatment: Add 15μl Benzonase Nuclease and 2mM Mg²⁺ to the lysate. Mix thoroughly and incubate overnight at 37°C to degrade exposed host DNA [42].
• DNA Extraction: Proceed with standard DNA extraction using the MagMAX DNA extraction protocol or similar system.
• Library Preparation and Sequencing: Prepare libraries using appropriate kits (e.g., NextFlex Rapid XP DNA-seq Kit) and sequence on preferred platform (e.g., Illumina MiSeq) [42].

Critical Considerations:

• Sample freshness is crucial for maintaining microbial cell integrity
• Mg²⁺ concentration must be optimized for nuclease activity
• Extended incubation ensures complete host DNA degradation
• Include untreated controls to assess depletion efficiency

Filtration-Based Host Depletion (F_ase) for Respiratory Samples

The F_ase method, developed for respiratory samples, combines size-based separation with nuclease digestion to efficiently remove host DNA while preserving microbial diversity [2].

Reagents and Equipment:

• 10 μm filters
• Nuclease enzyme (e.g., Benzonase or similar)
• DNA extraction kit
• Centrifuge with appropriate rotors
• Vortex mixer
• Temperature-controlled incubator

Procedure:

• Sample Pre-treatment: Add 25% glycerol to samples as a cryoprotectant to maintain microbial cell integrity during processing [2].
• Size-Based Separation: Pass samples through 10 μm filters to separate larger human cells from smaller microbial cells.
• Nuclease Digestion: Treat filtrate with nuclease enzyme to degrade any residual host DNA.
• DNA Extraction: Extract DNA from the processed sample using standard protocols.
• Quality Control: Assess host depletion efficiency through qPCR measurement of host DNA concentration and microbial DNA retention.

Performance Characteristics:

• Demonstrates balanced performance in respiratory samples
• Provides 65.6-fold increase in microbial reads in BALF samples
• Shows minimal taxonomic bias compared to other methods [2]

Urine Sample Processing and Host Depletion

Urine presents unique challenges for cfDNA analysis due to low microbial biomass and variable host cell content. An optimized protocol has been developed specifically for urinary cfDNA extraction and host depletion.

Sample Volume Considerations:

• ≥ 3.0 mL urine volume results in the most consistent urobiome profiling [6]
• Centrifuge at 4°C and 20,000 × g for 30 minutes to pellet cells and debris
• Discard supernatant and proceed with pellet for DNA extraction

Host Depletion Methods Comparison for Urine:

• QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit yielded the greatest microbial diversity in both 16S rRNA and shotgun metagenomic sequencing data [6]
• Effectively depletes host DNA in host-spiked urine samples
• Maximizes MAG recovery for functional analysis [6]

Extraction Efficiency Evaluation:

• Spike-in normalization using synthetic constructs like CEREBIS (Construct to Evaluate the Recovery Efficiency of cfDNA extraction and Bisulphite modification) can assess extraction efficiency [41]
• Different extraction methods show varying efficiencies: 84.1% (± 8.17) for QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit in plasma, 58.7% (± 11.1) for Zymo Quick-DNA Urine Kit, and 30.2% (± 13.2) for Q Sepharose protocol based on 180 bp CEREBIS spike-in [41]

Visualization of Method Selection and Workflow

To guide researchers in selecting appropriate host depletion methods based on their sample type and research objectives, the following decision pathway provides a visual framework:

Figure 1: Method Selection Pathway for Host DNA Depletion. This workflow guides researchers in selecting optimal host depletion strategies based on sample type characteristics and methodological advantages demonstrated in recent studies [2] [42] [6].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Kits for Host DNA Depletion

Reagent/Kit	Manufacturer	Principle	Applications	Key Considerations
HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit	Zymo Research	Selective eukaryotic cell lysis + DNA degradation	Saliva, swabs, bodily fluids [44]	Not for fecal samples; 30 min hands-on time [44]
Benzonase Nuclease	Sigma-Aldrich/Millipore	Non-specific endonuclease cleaves DNA/RNA	Saliva, sputum, respiratory samples [42]	Requires fresh samples; Mg²⁺ dependent [42]
QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit	Qiagen	Selective lysis + enzymatic degradation	Urine, respiratory samples [2] [6]	Optimal for urine; maximizes MAG recovery [6]
QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit	Qiagen	Silica-membrane based extraction	Plasma, serum cfDNA [41]	High recovery efficiency (84.1%) for plasma [41]
Zymo Quick-DNA Urine Kit	Zymo Research	Silica-based spin column method	Urinary cfDNA [41]	Moderate recovery efficiency (58.7%) [41]
CEREBIS Spike-in	Custom synthetic	Artificial DNA for efficiency evaluation	Extraction efficiency normalization [41]	180 bp fragment mimics mononucleosomal cfDNA [41]

Effective host DNA depletion is essential for advancing cfDNA research and applications across diverse sample types. The methods detailed in this application note provide researchers with validated approaches to overcome the challenge of high host DNA background, enabling more efficient and accurate shotgun metagenomic sequencing. As the field continues to evolve, standardization of these protocols and careful consideration of methodological biases will be crucial for generating comparable, reproducible results across studies. The integration of spike-in controls for normalization and selection of method-specific optimal sample volumes further enhances the reliability of cfDNA analysis, paving the way for more sensitive detection of microbial and disease-associated biomarkers in clinical and research settings.

In shotgun metagenomic sequencing of samples with high host background, effective depletion of host DNA is a critical pre-analytical step. The sensitivity and accuracy of microbial detection are heavily dependent on optimizing parameters such as lysis conditions, reagent concentrations, and sample input volume. These parameters directly influence the ratio of microbial to host DNA in the final extract, determining the success of downstream sequencing applications. This document provides a structured framework for optimizing these key parameters to maximize host DNA depletion efficiency while preserving microbial DNA integrity and yield.

The Impact of Key Parameters on Host Depletion Efficiency

Optimizing host DNA depletion requires balancing multiple, often competing, factors. The table below summarizes the core parameters and their optimization targets.

Table 1: Key Parameters for Host DNA Depletion Optimization

Parameter Category	Specific Factor	Optimization Goal	Impact on Output
Lysis Condition	Mechanical vs. Enzymatic	Gram-type specificity; DNA integrity	Mechanical lysis (bead beating) is more effective for Gram-positive bacteria but may increase host DNA shearing [45].
Reagent Concentration	Saponin; Propidium Monoazide (PMA)	Host cell lysis efficiency; selective degradation of free DNA	0.025% saponin and 10 µM PMA are optimized concentrations for effective host depletion with minimal microbial loss [2].
Sample Volume	Input volume; Filter Pore Size	Maximize target microbial DNA; minimize co-captured host DNA	Larger sample volumes (e.g., ≥3 mL urine, 3L water) and larger pore size filters (5µm for non-microbial targets) maximize the target-to-total DNA ratio [46] [6].
Sample Type & Handling	Cryopreservation; Natural Matrix	Maintain microbial viability/load; reduce host background	Freezing without cryoprotectant reduces viability of some Gram-negative bacteria (e.g., Pseudomonas aeruginosa), potentially biasing community profiles [19].

Optimized Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Pre-Extraction Host DNA Depletion for Respiratory Samples (Saponin + Nuclease Method)

This protocol is optimized for high-host-content respiratory samples like bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and oropharyngeal swabs, based on methods demonstrating a >99.9% reduction in host DNA concentration [2].

Key Reagents & Solutions:

• Saponin stock solution (0.25% w/v in PBS)
• Molecular biology-grade nuclease (e.g., Benzonase)
• Lysis buffer (e.g., from QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit or HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit)
• Phosphate-Buffered Saline (PBS)

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Sample Preparation: Thaw frozen sample and vortex thoroughly. For swabs, elute in 1-2 mL of PBS.
• Host Cell Lysis:
  • Add saponin stock to the sample to a final concentration of 0.025%.
  • Incubate at room temperature for 15 minutes with gentle inversion to lyse host cells.
• Nuclease Digestion:
  • Add nuclease enzyme per manufacturer's instructions.
  • Incubate at 37°C for 30-60 minutes to degrade exposed host DNA.
• Microbial Pellet Recovery:
  • Centrifuge the sample at 10,000 x g for 10 minutes to pellet intact microbial cells.
  • Carefully discard the supernatant containing degraded host DNA.
• Cell Washing: Resuspend the pellet in 1 mL of PBS and centrifuge again. Discard the supernatant.
• DNA Extraction: Proceed with DNA extraction from the microbial pellet using a preferred commercial kit, incorporating mechanical lysis for robust Gram-positive bacterial disruption.

Protocol 2: Sample Volume and Filtration Optimization for Liquid Samples

This protocol guides the processing of liquid samples like urine or water to maximize the yield of microbial DNA for sequencing [46] [6].

Key Reagents & Solutions:

• Minimal Salt Medium (MSM) or appropriate dilution buffer
• Filters with varying pore sizes (e.g., 0.45µm, 1.0µm, 5.0µm)
• DNA extraction kit (e.g., QIAamp BiOstic Bacteremia Kit)

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Volume Assessment: For urine samples, use a minimum of 3.0 mL to ensure consistent microbial community profiling. For environmental water samples, larger volumes (e.g., 3 L) are superior to 1 L for target detection [46] [6].
• Pore Size Selection: For non-microbial targets (e.g., mammalian cells, metazoan DNA), use a 5.0 µm pore size filter. This reduces co-capture of abundant microbial DNA and increases the relative proportion of target DNA [46].
• Filtration: Pass the measured sample volume through the selected filter membrane under a gentle vacuum.
• DNA Extraction from Filter:
  • Either extract DNA directly from the filter membrane or resuspend the captured material in a lysis buffer.
  • For diverse bacterial communities, use a kit that combines chemical and mechanical lysis (bead beating), such as the QIAamp PowerFecal Pro DNA kit, to ensure unbiased lysis of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria [45].

Workflow and Decision Pathways

The following diagram illustrates the logical decision process for selecting and optimizing a host depletion strategy based on sample type and research objectives.

Research Reagent Solutions

Selecting the appropriate reagents and kits is fundamental to a successful host depletion workflow. The following table catalogs key solutions used in the cited experiments.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Host Depletion Workflows

Reagent / Kit Name	Primary Function	Specific Role in Host Depletion	Key Experimental Use
Saponin	Detergent	Lyses eukaryotic (host) cell membranes	Used at 0.025% for efficient host cell lysis in respiratory samples prior to nuclease treatment [2].
Propidium Monoazide (PMA)	DNA cross-linker	Penetrates compromised host cells and cross-links DNA, rendering it unamplifiable	Applied at 10 µM in osmotic lysis protocols (e.g., O_pma) to degrade free DNA [2].
QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit	DNA Extraction	Pre-extraction lysis of host cells and enzymatic digestion of host DNA	Effectively increased microbial reads in BALF and sputum samples, though with variable bacterial retention [2] [19].
HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit	DNA Extraction	Comprehensive pre-extraction host depletion protocol	Showed high host removal efficiency and significantly increased final microbial reads in respiratory samples [2] [19].
QIAamp PowerFecal Pro DNA Kit	DNA Extraction	Chemical and mechanical lysis (bead beating)	Enabled unbiased identification of all bacterial species (Gram+/Gram-) in a mock community for ONT sequencing [45].
Benzonase Nuclease	Enzyme	Degrades DNA in solution after host cell lysis	Tailored for host DNA depletion in sputum samples in a pre-extraction workflow [19].

Host DNA contamination represents a significant challenge in shotgun metagenomic sequencing of host-associated samples, often comprising over 90% of generated sequences and obscuring microbial signals [1] [47]. This contamination dilutes microbial sequencing depth, increases costs, and reduces sensitivity for detecting low-abundance pathogens [2] [48]. Effective host DNA depletion requires an integrated approach combining wet-lab experimental methods with computational bioinformatic subtraction. While wet-lab techniques physically or chemically reduce host DNA prior to sequencing, bioinformatic approaches provide a final purification layer by computationally separating host from microbial reads in sequencing data [1] [13]. This application note examines the role of bioinformatic host read subtraction within a comprehensive host DNA depletion strategy, providing detailed protocols and performance comparisons to guide researchers in implementing these critical techniques.

Wet-Lab Host DNA Depletion Methods

Principle and Classification

Wet-lab host DNA depletion methods employ physical, chemical, or enzymatic techniques to selectively remove host genetic material during sample preparation. These methods operate before sequencing and can be categorized as either pre-extraction or post-extraction approaches [2]. Pre-extraction methods physically separate microbial cells from host cells or degrade free host DNA, while post-extraction methods selectively remove host DNA from total extracted nucleic acids based on biochemical properties like methylation patterns [2] [1].

Performance Comparison of Wet-Lab Methods

The table below summarizes the performance characteristics of major wet-lab host DNA depletion methods based on recent benchmarking studies:

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Wet-Lab Host DNA Depletion Methods

Method	Mechanism	Host Depletion Efficiency	Microbial DNA Retention	Key Limitations
Saponin Lysis + Nuclease (S_ase) [2]	Selective host cell lysis with saponin followed by DNAse digestion of released DNA	High (99.99% in BALF samples)	Moderate	Potential damage to fragile microbes; requires optimization
HostZERO Kit (K_zym) [2] [49]	Proprietary selective lysis method	High (99.99% in BALF samples)	Low to moderate	Variable efficiency across sample types
QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit (K_qia) [2] [49]	Selective binding and separation	Moderate	High (21% retention in OP samples)	Lower depletion efficiency for high-host-content samples
Nuclease Digestion (R_ase) [2]	DNAse digestion of free DNA	Moderate	High (31% retention in BALF samples)	Cannot remove intracellular host DNA
Filtration + Nuclease (F_ase) [2]	Size-based filtration followed by DNAse treatment	High (65.6-fold increase in microbial reads)	Moderate	May lose larger microbes; cannot remove cell-free host DNA
NEBNext Microbiome Enrichment [49]	Methylation-based capture of host DNA	Low to moderate for respiratory samples [2]	High	Inefficient for samples with high host content

Detailed Protocol: Filtration and Nuclease Treatment (F_ase Method)

The F_ase method represents a balanced approach with high host depletion efficiency and moderate microbial DNA retention, suitable for respiratory and tissue samples [2].

Materials and Reagents

Research Reagent Solutions for F_ase Protocol

Reagent/Equipment	Specification	Function
Sterile PBS	pH 7.4, molecular biology grade	Sample washing and dilution
Filtration Unit	10 μm pore size	Removal of host cells and debris
DNase I Enzyme	Molecular biology grade, RNase-free	Degradation of free DNA
DNase Buffer	10X concentration, supplied with enzyme	Optimal enzyme activity
Proteinase K	Molecular biology grade	Protein digestion
Lysis Buffer	Contains guanidinium thiocyanate	Microbial cell lysis
DNA Purification Beads	Silica-based magnetic beads	DNA binding and purification
Nucleic Acid Shield	Commercial formulation (e.g., Zymo Research)	Sample preservation

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Sample Preparation

  • Suspend fresh or frozen sample in 1mL sterile PBS
  • Centrifuge at 500 × g for 5 minutes to pellet large debris
  • Collect supernatant containing microbial cells

• Filtration Step

  • Pass supernatant through 10μm filter unit
  • Collect flow-through containing microbial cells
  • Retain filter for optional host cell analysis if needed

• Nuclease Treatment

  • Add DNase I to flow-through at final concentration of 10U/mL
  • Incubate at 37°C for 30 minutes with gentle mixing
  • Add STOP solution to inactivate DNase (5mM EDTA final concentration)

• Microbial Cell Lysis

  • Concentrate microbial cells by centrifugation at 16,000 × g for 10 minutes
  • Resuspend pellet in 200μL lysis buffer containing proteinase K
  • Incubate at 56°C for 1 hour with occasional vortexing

• DNA Purification

  • Add binding buffer and transfer to magnetic beads
  • Incubate for 10 minutes at room temperature
  • Wash twice with wash buffer
  • Elute DNA in 50μL elution buffer

• Quality Control

  • Quantify DNA using fluorometric methods
  • Assess fragment size distribution by bioanalyzer
  • Store at -20°C until library preparation

Bioinformatic Host Read Subtraction

Principle and Workflow

Bioinformatic host read subtraction functions as the final defense against host DNA contamination, identifying and removing host-derived sequences from sequencing data through computational alignment or sequence composition analysis [47] [1]. This approach complements wet-lab methods by addressing residual host DNA that persists through sample preparation, with effectiveness dependent on the completeness of host reference genomes and the specificity of classification algorithms [47].

Diagram 1: Bioinformatic host read subtraction workflow showing the process from raw sequencing data to purified microbial reads.

Performance Comparison of Bioinformatics Tools

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Bioinformatics Host Read Removal Tools

Tool	Strategy	Speed	Memory Usage	Sensitivity	Key Applications
Kraken2 [47]	k-mer based classification	Fastest	Moderate	High	Large datasets; real-time analysis
Bowtie2 [47] [1]	Alignment-based	Moderate	Low	High	Precision applications; validation
BWA [47] [1]	Alignment-based	Slow	Low	Highest	Clinical diagnostics; high accuracy
KneadData [47] [1]	Integrated pipeline (Bowtie2 + Trimmomatic)	Moderate	Moderate	High	Standardized workflows; multi-step processing
KMCP [47]	k-mer based with coverage information	Fast	High	Moderate	Metagenomic assembly; contig classification

Impact on Downstream Analysis

Computational host read removal significantly enhances metagenomic analysis by reducing runtime for downstream processes. In benchmark studies, host-read-removed data required 5.98 times less processing time for binning, 7.63 times less for functional annotation, and 20.55 times less for assembly compared to raw data containing host reads [47]. Additionally, host read removal improves the accuracy of microbial community composition and functional potential analysis, with stronger correlation to true microbial profiles in simulated datasets [47].

Integrated Workflow and Case Studies

Complementary Nature of Wet-Lab and Dry-Lab Approaches

Wet-lab and dry-lab host DNA depletion methods function synergistically rather than redundantly. Wet-lab methods reduce host DNA physically before sequencing, increasing the proportion of microbial reads and enabling more cost-effective sequencing [2] [1]. Bioinformatic subtraction then removes residual host contamination that persists despite wet-lab efforts, serving as a final purification step [1] [13]. The combined approach maximizes sensitivity for detecting low-abundance microbes while maintaining cost efficiency.

Diagram 2: Complementary roles of wet-lab and dry-lab host DNA depletion methods in an integrated workflow.

Case Study: Respiratory Microbiome Analysis

In a comprehensive benchmarking study of host depletion methods for respiratory samples, the F_ase method (filtration + nuclease treatment) demonstrated balanced performance, increasing microbial reads to 1.57% of total sequences (65.6-fold increase) in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples [2]. When combined with bioinformatic subtraction using KneadData, the approach enabled detection of low-abundance respiratory pathogens that were undetectable without host depletion, while maintaining the proportional representation of dominant community members [2].

Implementation Considerations

Sample-Type Specific Recommendations

• High-host-content tissues (intestinal, tumor): Combined physical separation (filtration/centrifugation) with enzymatic treatment, followed by alignment-based bioinformatic subtraction (BWA/Bowtie2) [49] [48]
• Low-biomass fluids (blood, CSF): Multiple displacement amplification with k-mer based bioinformatic filtering (Kraken2) to address amplification biases [48] [1]
• Respiratory samples: Saponin lysis or F_ase method with KneadData pipeline for comprehensive analysis [2]

Quality Control Metrics

• Wet-lab efficiency: Host DNA removal >99% with microbial DNA retention >20% [2]
• Sequencing: Microbial read percentage >10% after wet-lab depletion [1]
• Bioinformatic: >95% host read removal without significant reduction in microbial diversity [47]

Effective host DNA depletion requires the integrated application of both wet-lab and dry-lab approaches. Wet-lab methods substantially reduce host DNA burden before sequencing, making sequencing more cost-effective and increasing microbial read coverage. Bioinformatic subtraction provides a crucial final purification step, removing residual host sequences that persist despite wet-lab efforts. The optimal combination of methods depends on sample type, host DNA content, and research objectives, but consistently demonstrates improved sensitivity for microbial detection, more accurate community profiling, and enhanced functional analysis compared to either approach alone. As metagenomic sequencing moves toward clinical applications, standardized protocols incorporating both methodological streams will be essential for generating reproducible, reliable results in host-associated microbiome studies.

Benchmarking Method Efficacy with Clinical and Mock Community Data

In shotgun metagenomic sequencing of host-derived samples, the overwhelming abundance of host DNA presents a significant challenge, often constituting over 90% of the total sequenced DNA and obscuring microbial signals. Host depletion kits have emerged as essential tools to address this limitation, yet evaluating their performance requires standardized metrics and methodologies. This application note establishes a comprehensive framework of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for the systematic evaluation of host depletion technologies, enabling researchers to make informed decisions based on efficiency, fidelity, and practical implementation factors. Proper standardization is crucial for advancing microbiome research, particularly in clinical and pharmaceutical applications where accurate microbial profiling can inform therapeutic development.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Host Depletion Evaluation

A standardized evaluation of host depletion kits should encompass multiple dimensions of performance, from basic efficiency to potential biases introduced during the process. The following KPIs provide a comprehensive framework for comparison.

Table 1: Key Performance Indicators for Evaluating Host Depletion Kits

KPI Category	Specific Metric	Measurement Method	Target Outcome
Depletion Efficiency	Percentage of host reads post-depletion	Shotgun metagenomic sequencing alignment to host genome	>90% reduction vs. untreated samples [18] [2]
	Host DNA concentration post-treatment	qPCR with host-specific primers (e.g., PTGER2, β-globin) [18] [50]	Reduction by 1-4 orders of magnitude [2]
Microbial Recovery	Bacterial DNA retention rate	qPCR with 16S rRNA primers [2]	Maximize retention (>20% ideal) [2]
	Final microbial reads after depletion	Non-host reads in metagenomic data [51]	High fold-increase (e.g., 2.5 to 100x) [2]
Taxonomic Fidelity	Change in microbial community structure	Morisita-Horn dissimilarity compared to untreated sample [51]	Low dissimilarity (minimal bias introduced)
	Representation of Gram-positive vs. Gram-negative bacteria	Relative abundance in post-depletion profiling	Balanced representation [18]
Functional Impact	Microbial gene richness post-depletion	Gene prediction from metagenomic data [2]	Increased functional richness
	Genome coverage of key pathogens	Evenness of coverage across microbial genomes [2]	High, uniform coverage
Practical Considerations	Sample loss / failure rate	Library preparation success rate [51]	Minimal failures
	Hands-on time	Protocol steps and duration [18]	Minimal (<5 minutes ideal)
	Cost per sample	Reagent and consumable costs	Cost-effective

Detailed Experimental Protocols for KPI Assessment

Protocol 1: Cross-Method Comparison Study

This protocol outlines a standardized approach for comparing multiple host depletion methods side-by-side, as used in recent benchmarking studies [18] [2].

Sample Preparation:

• Collect fresh saliva, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), or oropharyngeal swabs from 8+ participants.
• Homogenize each sample thoroughly and aliquot into equal volumes (e.g., 200 µL).
• Assign triplicate aliquots to each host depletion method and untreated control.

Host Depletion Methods Tested:

• Untreated (Raw) samples: Process through DNA extraction without prior treatment.
• Osmotic lysis with PMA (lyPMA): Resuspend sample in pure water for selective mammalian cell lysis, then treat with 10 µM propidium monoazide (PMA) and expose to visible light to cross-link free DNA [18].
• Saponin lysis with nuclease (S_ase): Treat with 0.025% saponin to lyse human cells, followed by nuclease digestion of exposed DNA [2].
• Filtering with nuclease (F_ase): Pass sample through 10 µm filter, followed by nuclease digestion of filtrate [2].
• Commercial kits: Process according to manufacturer instructions for QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit, HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit, MolYsis Basic, and NEBNext Microbiome DNA Enrichment Kit [18] [2] [52].

Downstream Processing:

• Extract DNA from all samples using the same purification method.
• Prepare shotgun sequencing libraries in parallel.
• Sequence on an Illumina platform with at least 10 million reads per sample for BALF and 12 million for oropharyngeal samples [2].
• Analyze data by aligning reads to the human reference genome and microbial databases.

Protocol 2: Efficiency and Bias Assessment

This protocol specifically evaluates depletion efficiency and potential taxonomic bias using quantitative methods.

Host DNA Quantification:

• Perform qPCR on pre- and post-depletion DNA samples using human-specific primers (e.g., PTGER2 gene or β-globin).
• Calculate percentage reduction in host DNA using the ΔΔCt method.
• Compare to untreated controls to determine depletion efficiency [18] [50].

Bacterial DNA Recovery Assessment:

• Perform qPCR with universal 16S rRNA gene primers on pre- and post-depletion DNA.
• Calculate bacterial DNA retention rate as: (Post-treatment bacterial DNA / Pre-treatment bacterial DNA) × 100 [2].

Taxonomic Bias Evaluation:

• Analyze shotgun metagenomic data from mock microbial communities of known composition processed with each depletion method.
• Calculate relative abundance of each bacterial taxon compared to expected composition.
• Identify taxa that are significantly enriched or depleted post-treatment [2].

Functional Capacity Assessment:

• Annotate genes in metagenomic assemblies from depleted samples.
• Compare gene richness (number of unique genes) and genome coverage between methods [2].

Workflow Visualization

Host Depletion KPI Evaluation Workflow

Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details essential materials and reagents required for implementing the standardized evaluation protocols described in this application note.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Host Depletion Evaluation

Reagent / Kit	Specific Function	Application Context
Propidium Monoazide (PMA)	Cross-links free DNA upon light exposure; prevents amplification of extracellular host DNA [18].	lyPMA method for saliva, BALF, and respiratory samples.
Saponin	Detergent that selectively lyses mammalian cells based on cholesterol content in membranes [2].	S_ase method; optimal concentration 0.025% for respiratory samples.
Benzonase Nuclease	Degrades exposed DNA after host cell lysis; removes extracellular host DNA [51].	Multiple pre-extraction methods (Rase, Oase, Sase, Fase).
HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit	Selectively lyses human cells and degrades host DNA before microbial DNA purification [2] [53].	Commercial solution for swabs and bodily fluids.
QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit	Uses differential lysis and enzymatic digestion to deplete host DNA with mechanical/chemical microbial lysis [18] [52].	Commercial solution with minimal taxonomic bias.
SPINeasy Host Depletion Kit	Selective host lysis followed by enzymatic degradation and mechanical microbial lysis [50].	Commercial solution for saliva, swabs, and bodily fluids.
Human-specific qPCR primers	Quantifies host DNA concentration pre- and post-depletion (e.g., PTGER2, β-globin genes) [18] [50].	Efficiency assessment across all methods.
16S rRNA qPCR primers	Quantifies bacterial DNA load and calculates retention rates post-depletion [2].	Microbial recovery assessment.

Standardized evaluation of host depletion kits through the comprehensive KPIs outlined in this application note enables reproducible, comparable assessment across laboratories and sample types. The experimental protocols provide a rigorous methodology for benchmarking both commercial and laboratory-developed methods, with particular attention to the critical balance between depletion efficiency and preservation of microbial integrity. As metagenomic sequencing continues to transform microbiome research and drug development, implementing these standardized evaluations will ensure that host depletion methods are selected based on empirical performance data rather than commercial claims, ultimately enhancing the quality and reliability of microbial community analyses in host-derived samples.

Within microbiome research, a significant technical challenge persists: the isolation of microbial DNA from samples overwhelmingly composed of host genetic material. This is particularly true for shotgun metagenomic sequencing of tissue biopsies, bodily fluids, and other high-host-content specimens, where host DNA can constitute over 99% of the total sequenced reads, drastically reducing the sensitivity and cost-efficiency of microbial detection [8] [52]. Host DNA depletion methods are, therefore, a critical first step in unlocking the functional potential of microbiota in such environments. This application note provides a contemporary comparative analysis of four commercial host DNA depletion kits—the QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit (Qiagen), HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit (Zymo Research), MolYsis Basic5/Complete5 series (Molzym), and the NEBNext Microbiome DNA Enrichment Kit (New England Biolabs)—framed within the context of a broader thesis on optimizing shotgun metagenomic sequencing. We synthesize recent benchmarking studies to evaluate kit efficacy, bias, and suitability for different sample types, supplemented with detailed protocols and data-driven recommendations for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals.

Performance Benchmarking and Comparative Analysis

Recent independent studies have systematically evaluated the performance of these kits across various sample matrices, including intestinal tissue, respiratory samples, and urine. The table below summarizes key quantitative findings on host depletion efficiency and its impact on microbial community profiling.

Table 1: Comparative Performance of Host DNA Depletion Kits from Recent Studies

Kit (Method Name)	Reported Host Depletion Efficiency	Microbial Read Increase (vs. Control)	Key Strengths	Key Limitations / Biases
QIAamp DNA Microbiome (K_qia)	~95% host DNA reduction in buccal swabs [52]; Effective in intestinal tissues [8]	55.3-fold in BALF samples [2]	High bacterial DNA retention in OP samples [2]; Minimal sample prep bias [52]	Introduces substantial taxonomic bias in frozen tissues [54]
HostZERO (K_zym)	>90% of eukaryotic host DNA depleted [55]; Best performance in BALF for microbial read increase [2]	100.3-fold in BALF samples [2]	Highest host DNA removal efficiency in respiratory samples [2]; Effective depletion in discovery settings [54]	Introduces substantial taxonomic bias in frozen tissues [54]; Alters microbial abundance in ONT sequencing [8]
MolYsis (MOL)	Efficient host DNA depletion from body fluids [56]	Intermediate fold-enrichment in pig tissues [54]	Ideal for liquid biopsies [56]; Effective depletion in discovery settings [54]	Introduces substantial taxonomic bias in frozen tissues [54]
NEBNext (NEB)	~5-fold microbial enrichment in human frozen tissue [54]	25.4-fold in BALF samples [2]	Lower taxonomic bias compared to physical separation methods [54]; Does not require intact microbial cells [54]	Poor performance in respiratory samples [2]; Low enrichment in pig tissues [54]
Chromatin Immunoprecipitation (ChIP)	~10-fold microbial enrichment [54]	Not specified	Lowest taxonomic bias of all methods tested [54]; Does not require intact microbial cells [54]	Lower depletion level than physical separation methods [54]

A critical consideration when selecting a depletion method is the trade-off between the degree of host DNA removal and the preservation of the original microbial community structure. Methods that rely on physical separation and degradation of host DNA (QIAamp, HostZERO, MolYsis), while achieving the highest levels of depletion, can introduce significant distortion in the observed microbial composition [54] [57]. For instance, a 2025 study on frozen intestinal biopsies reported Bray-Curtis dissimilarity indices of often >0.8 for these kits, indicating that the recovered communities were radically different from the non-depleted controls [54]. In contrast, the NEBNext kit and the emerging ChIP method showed markedly lower bias (Bray-Curtis ~0.25-0.3), though with a lower fold-enrichment of microbial DNA [54] [57].

Table 2: Performance Trade-offs: Depletion Efficiency vs. Taxonomic Bias

Method	Host Depletion Level	Taxonomic Bias	Recommended Use Case
HostZERO, MolYsis	Very High (>>100-fold)	Very High	Discovery settings where detecting any microbes is prioritized over community accuracy [54]
QIAamp Microbiome	High (~55-fold)	High	Swabs, body fluids; when high bacterial retention is needed [2] [52]
NEBNext	Low to Moderate (5-25 fold)	Low	When community fidelity is critical and lower depletion is acceptable [54]
ChIP	Moderate (~10-fold)	Lowest	Situations where minimizing taxonomic bias is essential, esp. in frozen tissues [54] [57]

Detailed Experimental Protocols

The following section outlines standardized protocols for evaluating host depletion kits, derived from cited methodologies.

Generic Workflow for Kit Comparison

The diagram below illustrates a generalized experimental workflow for comparing host DNA depletion methods, adaptable for various sample types.

Protocol for Host Depletion from Frozen Intestinal Biopsies

This protocol is adapted from a 2025 study comparing kits for frozen tissue specimens [54] [57].

• Sample Preparation and Homogenization

  • Input: ~1 mg of frozen human or pig intestinal biopsy.
  • Reagent: 100 µL of appropriate kit-specific lysis buffer or PBS.
  • Equipment: Qiagen TissueRuptor II or similar mechanical homogenizer.
  • Procedure: Homogenize the tissue on ice until no visible fragments remain. This step is critical for disrupting the extracellular matrix and making host cells accessible for lysis [54].

• Host DNA Depletion

  • Kits Used: Follow manufacturer protocols for MolYsis Basic5 (Molzym), QIAamp DNA Microbiome (Qiagen), HostZERO (Zymo Research), and NEBNext Microbiome DNA Enrichment (NEB).
  • Key Modifications:
    • For methods relying on differential lysis (MolYsis, QIAamp, HostZERO), ensure complete initial lysis of host cells.
    • For the NEB method, ensure DNA is fully sheared and in solution for efficient methyl-CpG binding.
  • Negative Controls: Include no-sample blanks processed identically to monitor contamination.

• DNA Extraction and Purification

  • Procedure: Complete the DNA isolation steps as specified by each kit's manual.
  • Elution: Elute DNA in a low-EDTA TE buffer or nuclease-free water, typical volume 50-100 µL.

• Quality Control and Sequencing

  • DNA QC: Quantify DNA yield and purity using fluorometric methods (e.g., Qubit) and spectrophotometry (e.g., NanoDrop). Assess DNA integrity if needed (e.g., Bioanalyzer).
  • Sequencing: Prepare shotgun metagenomic libraries (e.g., Illumina Nextera XT) and sequence on an appropriate platform (e.g., Illumina MiSeq/HiSeq) to a minimum depth of 10-20 million reads per sample [54].

Protocol for Host Depletion from Respiratory Samples

This protocol is adapted from a 2025 benchmarking study on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and oropharyngeal (OP) swabs [2].

• Sample Processing

  • BALF: Concentrate cells by centrifugation (e.g., 13,000 x g, 10 min). Resuspend pellet in a small volume of PBS or kit-specific buffer.
  • OP Swabs: Place swab in transport medium or PBS and vortex vigorously to release material.

• Host DNA Depletion

  • Methods: Compare commercial kits (e.g., QIAamp, HostZERO) against laboratory methods (e.g., saponin lysis + nuclease digestion (Sase), filtering + nuclease digestion (Fase)).
  • Optimization:
    • For S_ase method, use a low concentration of saponin (0.025%) to lyse host cells.
    • Add 25% glycerol as a cryoprotectant for microbial cells if samples are to be stored [2].

• Downstream Analysis

  • Sequencing: Perform shotgun metagenomic sequencing.
  • Bioinformatic Analysis:
    • Host Read Filtering: Align reads to the host genome (e.g., hg38) and remove matching sequences.
    • Microbial Profiling: Align non-host reads to microbial databases for taxonomic classification (e.g., Kraken2, MetaPhlAn) and functional annotation (e.g., HUMAnN3).
    • Statistical Evaluation: Calculate the percentage of microbial reads, species richness, and genome coverage. Compare community composition (beta-diversity) between depleted and non-depleted samples to assess bias.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Kits for Host DNA Depletion Studies

Product Name	Manufacturer	Function / Application
QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit	Qiagen	Purification and enrichment of bacterial microbiome DNA from swabs and body fluids; uses differential host lysis and enzymatic DNA degradation [52].
HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit	Zymo Research	Depletes host DNA from samples with intact bacteria (e.g., saliva, swabs); selectively lyses eukaryotic cells and degrades DNA prior to total DNA purification [55].
MolYsis Basic5 / Complete5	Molzym	Selective lysis of host cells and degradation of released DNA for PCR sensitivity enhancement; ideal for liquid biopsies like blood, CSF, BALF [56].
NEBNext Microbiome DNA Enrichment Kit	New England Biolabs	Enriches microbial DNA by leveraging differences in CpG methylation between host and microbial DNA; uses magnetic bead-based separation [54].
ZymoBIOMICS Lysis Solution	Zymo Research	Component for unbiased mechanical lysis of microbial cells in various DNA/RNA extraction protocols [55].
DNA/RNA Shield	Zymo Research	A reagent that immediately stabilizes nucleic acids in samples at room temperature, preventing degradation and preserving sample integrity for later analysis [55].

The optimal choice of a host DNA depletion method is not universal but is dictated by the specific research question, sample type, and the necessary trade-off between sequencing depth and community fidelity.

• For Maximum Depletion in Discovery-Driven Research: When the primary goal is to detect low-biomass or rare microbes and deep sequencing is planned, HostZERO or MolYsis kits are recommended, particularly for respiratory samples or liquid biopsies [2] [54]. Users must be aware that the resulting microbial community profile may contain significant biases.

• For Community Fidelity in Frozen Tissues: When the accurate representation of the in-situ microbial community is paramount, as in longitudinal studies or those correlating specific taxa with host phenotypes, the ChIP method demonstrates superior performance with minimal bias, despite a more modest depletion level [54] [57]. The NEBNext kit is an alternative, though its efficacy varies significantly by host species [54].

• For Balanced Performance in Various Samples: The QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit offers a robust, well-validated solution for a range of sample types like swabs and body fluids, providing substantial host depletion with reliable bacterial recovery [8] [52] [6].

As the field progresses, the development of methods that combine high depletion efficiency with low taxonomic bias, alongside standardized protocols for cross-study comparisons, will be crucial for advancing our understanding of host-associated microbiomes in health and disease.

Application Note: Clinical Validation of Host Transcriptomic and Metagenomic Diagnostics

Case Study 1: AI-Based Blood Test for Sepsis Diagnosis and Prognosis

Background: The TriVerity test was developed to address critical unmet needs in diagnosing acute infection and predicting severity. It utilizes isothermal amplification of 29 host immune mRNAs and machine learning algorithms on the Myrna instrument to determine likelihoods of bacterial infection, viral infection, and need for critical care within 7 days [58].

Clinical Validation (SEPSIS-SHIELD Study): A prospective, multicenter study enrolled 1,441 patients from 22 emergency departments. The primary diagnostic endpoint was clinically adjudicated infection status, while the prognostic endpoint was the need for "ICU-level care" (mechanical ventilation, vasopressor use, or new renal replacement therapy within 7 days) [58].

Key Performance Metrics: The table below summarizes the quantitative outcomes from the SEPSIS-SHIELD validation study.

Table 1: Performance Metrics of the TriVerity Test from the SEPSIS-SHIELD Study

Test Component	Performance Metric	Result	Comparator Performance
Bacterial Score	Area Under ROC Curve (AUROC)	0.83 [58]	Superior to CRP, Procalcitonin, White Blood Cell Count [58]
Viral Score	Area Under ROC Curve (AUROC)	0.91 [58]	Superior to CRP, Procalcitonin, White Blood Cell Count [58]
Severity Score	Area Under ROC Curve (AUROC)	0.78 [58]	Allowed risk reclassification vs. qSOFA [58]
All Scores	Rule-Out Sensitivity	>95% [58]	-
All Scores	Rule-In Specificity	>92% [58]	-
Antibiotic Utility	Potential Reduction in Inappropriate Use	60-70% [58]	Compared to adjudication post-follow-up [58]

Case Study 2: Mortality Risk Prediction Model for Sepsis Secondary to Pneumonia (SSP)

Background: This study aimed to develop and validate a non-invasive mortality risk prediction model for SSP patients at hospital admission to enable early identification of high-risk patients [59].

Model Development and Validation: A retrospective single-center cohort of 1,337 SSP patients was recruited. The derivation cohort (n=941) included patients from January 2017 to December 2020, and the validation cohort (n=396) included patients from January 2021 to July 2022. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality [59].

Final Model and Performance: The derived model incorporated seven key variables assessed at admission. Its predictive performance was compared to established scores, SOFA and APACHE II.

Table 2: Model Performance and Variables for SSP Mortality Risk Prediction

Aspect	Derivation Cohort (n=941)	Validation Cohort (n=396)
Area Under ROC Curve (AUC)	0.777 [59]	0.803 [59]
SOFA Score AUC	0.600 [59]	0.655 [59]
APACHE II Score AUC	0.625 [59]	0.688 [59]
Key Predictor Variables	Age, White Blood Cell Count, Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR), Lactate Dehydrogenase, Arterial Oxygen Pressure / Fraction of Inspired Oxygen (PaO2/FiO2), D-dimer, Vasoactive Drug Use [59]	-

The Critical Role of Host DNA Depletion in Respiratory and Urobiome Metagenomics

Challenge: Metagenomic sequencing of low-biomass samples, such as respiratory and urine specimens, is hampered by high levels of host DNA, which can overwhelm microbial signals and reduce sequencing sensitivity [2] [5].

Benchmarking Study Findings: A comprehensive evaluation of seven pre-extraction host DNA depletion methods using bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and oropharyngeal swab (OP) samples found that while all methods significantly increased microbial reads, they also introduced taxonomic biases and affected the recovery of specific commensals and pathogens like Prevotella spp. and Mycoplasma pneumoniae [2].

Table 3: Comparison of Host DNA Depletion Method Performance in Respiratory Samples

Method (Abbreviation)	Description	Key Findings
Saponin + Nuclease (S_ase)	Lysis of human cells with saponin, digestion of cell-free DNA [2].	Highest host DNA removal efficiency; significantly altered microbial abundance [2].
HostZERO Kit (K_zym)	Commercial kit for microbial DNA enrichment [2].	Best performance in increasing microbial read percentage in BALF (2.66% of total reads) [2].
Filtering + Nuclease (F_ase)	New method using 10μm filtering followed by nuclease digestion [2].	Most balanced performance across metrics [2].
Nuclease Only (R_ase)	Digestion of cell-free DNA without prior lysis [2].	Highest bacterial DNA retention rate in BALF (median 31%) [2].
Osmotic Lysis + PMA (O_pma)	Osmotic lysis of human cells, PMA degradation of DNA [2].	Least effective in increasing microbial reads (0.09% of total reads in BALF) [2].

Note on Urobiome Research: While the provided search results focus on respiratory and milk microbiomes, the principles and challenges of host DNA depletion are directly transferable to urobiome research. Urine samples, particularly from healthy individuals or those with non-bacterial pathologies, are classic low-biomass environments where efficient host DNA removal is paramount for accurate microbial community profiling. The methods benchmarked in [2] and [5] provide a foundational framework for developing optimized protocols for urine samples.

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Host mRNA Profiling for Sepsis Diagnosis Using the TriVerity Test

Principle: This protocol uses isothermal amplification of 29 host immune mRNA biomarkers and machine learning to generate Bacterial, Viral, and Severity scores.

Materials:

• Instrument: Myrna instrument [58].
• Consumables: Cartridge-based test kits [58].
• Sample Type: Whole blood.
• Reagents: Specific reagents for isothermal amplification and detection (not detailed in source).

Procedure:

• Sample Collection: Collect a whole blood sample from a patient presenting with suspected acute infection or sepsis.
• Sample Loading: Transfer the sample to the cartridge with under 1 minute of hands-on time [58].
• Automated Processing: Load the cartridge into the Myrna instrument. The system automatically performs:
  • mRNA extraction and purification.
  • Isothermal amplification of the 29 target host mRNAs [58].
  • Quantification of the mRNA targets.
• Data Analysis: The machine learning algorithm integrated into the system analyzes the quantitative mRNA data.
• Result Interpretation: The instrument outputs three scores (0-50), each categorized into one of five interpretation bands:
  • Bacterial Score: Likelihood of bacterial infection.
  • Viral Score: Likelihood of viral infection.
  • Severity Score: Risk of requiring ICU-level care within 7 days.
  • Interpretation Bands: Very Low (0-10), Low (11-20), Moderate (21-30), High (31-40), Very High (41-50). "Very Low/Low" bands are used for rule-out, and "High/Very High" for rule-in [58].

Protocol 2: Host DNA Depletion from Respiratory Samples for Metagenomic Sequencing

Principle: This protocol uses a combination of saponin-based lysis of human cells and nuclease digestion of released DNA to enrich for intact microbial cells prior to DNA extraction, based on the S_ase method which showed high depletion efficiency [2].

Materials:

• Biological Sample: Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid (BALF) or sputum.
• Lysis Buffer: Saponin solution (optimized concentration of 0.025%) [2].
• Enzymes: Benzonase or similar broad-spectrum endonuclease [2].
• Centrifugation Equipment: Refrigerated centrifuge.
• DNA Extraction Kit: Standard microbial DNA extraction kit (e.g., DNeasy PowerFood Microbial Kit [5]).

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation: Centrifuge BALF sample (e.g., 1-2 mL) at low speed (e.g., 500 - 2,000 x g) for 10 minutes to pellet human cells and some microorganisms. Carefully remove the supernatant containing cell-free DNA.
• Host Cell Lysis: Resuspend the pellet in a solution containing 0.025% saponin. Vortex thoroughly and incubate at room temperature for 15-30 minutes to lyse human cells [2].
• Nuclease Digestion: Add a broad-spectrum endonuclease (e.g., Benzonase) to the lysate. Incubate at 37°C for 30-60 minutes to digest the released host and cell-free DNA [2].
• Microbial Pellet Recovery: Centrifuge the digested sample at high speed (e.g., 10,000 - 15,000 x g) for 10 minutes to pellet the intact microbial cells. Discard the supernatant containing digested DNA fragments.
• DNA Extraction: Wash the microbial pellet and proceed with DNA extraction using a commercial microbial DNA extraction kit, following the manufacturer's instructions [5].
• Downstream Application: The extracted DNA is now suitable for library preparation and shotgun metagenomic sequencing.

Visualizations

Host DNA Depletion and Metagenomic Analysis Workflow

TriVerity Test Workflow for Sepsis Diagnosis

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for Host-Focused Diagnostics and Metagenomics

Research Reagent / Kit	Function / Application
Myrna Instrument & Cartridge	Integrated system for isothermal amplification and analysis of host mRNA signatures for infection classification and severity prediction [58].
HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit (Zymo Research)	Commercial kit for depleting host DNA to enrich microbial DNA from samples with high host background, such as BALF [2].
NEBNext Microbiome DNA Enrichment Kit	A post-extraction method that enriches microbial DNA by selectively depleting methylated host DNA. Shows variable performance in respiratory samples [2] [5].
MolYsis Basic/Complete5 Kit (Molzym)	A pre-extraction kit series designed to lyse human cells and digest the released DNA, preserving intact bacteria for downstream DNA extraction and metagenomics [5].
DNeasy PowerFood Microbial Kit (Qiagen)	DNA extraction kit optimized for difficult-to-lyse microbial cells in complex matrices, often used in conjunction with host depletion methods [5].
Saponin & Benzonase	Core reagents for in-house host depletion protocols. Saponin lyses eukaryotic cells, and Benzonase digests the released DNA [2].
Phi29 DNA Polymerase	Enzyme for Multiple Displacement Amplification (MDA), used for whole-genome amplification of low-biomass microbial DNA from samples like milk or urine to enable sequencing [5].

Host DNA depletion is a critical preparatory step in shotgun metagenomic sequencing of clinical samples, which are often dominated by host genetic material. While these methods significantly enhance microbial read recovery, their enzymatic and chemical treatments do not affect all microorganisms uniformly. Taxonomic biases introduced during depletion can skew microbial community profiles, particularly impacting the detection of commensal organisms and fastidious pathogens with fragile cell structures. Within the context of a broader thesis on method optimization, this application note systematically evaluates the biases of various host depletion techniques, providing standardized protocols for their assessment and guidance for selecting appropriate methods to minimize data distortion in microbial ecology and clinical research. Evidence from recent respiratory microbiome studies confirms that these biases can significantly alter observed microbial abundance and reduce the detection of key species [2].

Quantitative Comparison of Host Depletion Method Performance

The performance of host depletion methods varies considerably in their efficiency of host DNA removal, microbial DNA retention, and subsequent enhancement of metagenomic sequencing. The following tables summarize key quantitative metrics from recent benchmarking studies, providing a basis for comparative evaluation.

Table 1: Performance Metrics of Host Depletion Methods for Respiratory Samples (BALF and OPS)

Method Name	Method Category	Host DNA Reduction (Orders of Magnitude)	Microbial Read Increase (Fold vs. Raw)	Key Taxa Diminished
S_ase (Saponin + Nuclease)	Pre-extraction	4 (to 0.01% of original) [2]	55.8x [2]	Prevotella spp., Mycoplasma pneumoniae [2]
K_zym (HostZERO Kit)	Pre-extraction (Commercial)	4 (to <0.01% of original) [2]	100.3x [2]	Prevotella spp., Mycoplasma pneumoniae [2]
F_ase (Filter + Nuclease)	Pre-extraction	3-4 [2]	65.6x [2]	Demonstrates most balanced performance [2]
K_qia (QIAamp Microbiome Kit)	Pre-extraction (Commercial)	3-4 [2]	55.3x [2]	Prevotella spp., Mycoplasma pneumoniae [2]
O_ase (Osmotic Lysis + Nuclease)	Pre-extraction	2-3 [2]	25.4x [2]	Prevotella spp., Mycoplasma pneumoniae [2]
R_ase (Nuclease Digestion)	Pre-extraction	1-2 [2]	16.2x [2]	Highest bacterial DNA retention in BALF (median 31%) [2]
O_pma (Osmotic Lysis + PMA)	Pre-extraction	1-2 [2]	2.5x [2]	Prevotella spp., Mycoplasma pneumoniae [2]
NEBNext Microbiome Enrichment	Post-extraction	N/A	Poor performance for respiratory samples [2]	Not specified in study [2]

Table 2: Impact of Sample Type on Host and Microbial DNA Load Pre-Depletion

Sample Type	Median Bacterial Load	Median Host DNA Content	Typical Microbe-to-Host Read Ratio (Pre-depletion)	Cell-Free Microbial DNA
Oropharyngeal Swab (OP)	24.37 ng/swab [2]	50.20 ng/swab [2]	1:7 [2]	79.60% [2]
Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid (BALF)	1.28 ng/mL [2]	4446.16 ng/mL [2]	1:5263 [2]	68.97% [2]
Urine (Canine Model)	Low biomass, highly variable [60]	High burden in diseased states [60]	Overwhelmed by host reads without depletion [60]	Not quantified

Experimental Protocols for Bias Assessment

Protocol: Benchmarking Host Depletion Methods

Objective: To systematically evaluate the performance and taxonomic bias of multiple host depletion methods on a set of matched clinical samples.

Materials:

• Clinical samples (e.g., BALF, oropharyngeal swabs, urine)
• Reagents for host depletion methods (see Section 5: Research Reagent Solutions)
• DNA extraction kits (e.g., QIAamp BiOstic Bacteremia Kit)
• Qubit fluorometer and qPCR equipment
• Library preparation kit and sequencing platform

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation and Aliquoting: Homogenize each clinical sample and divide into equal aliquots for each host depletion method to be tested and a non-depleted (Raw) control [2].
• Host Depletion Treatment: Process each aliquot according to the specific protocol for each method. For pre-extraction methods (e.g., Sase, Fase), this involves steps like saponin lysis, filtration, or nuclease digestion before DNA extraction. For post-extraction methods, perform DNA extraction first followed by enrichment [2] [60].
• DNA Extraction and Quantification: Extract total DNA from all processed samples and controls. Quantify total DNA yield using a fluorometer (e.g., Qubit). Quantify human and bacterial DNA loads using species-specific qPCR assays [2] [60].
• Library Preparation and Sequencing: Prepare shotgun metagenomic libraries for all samples and sequence on an appropriate platform (e.g., Illumina) to a standardized depth (e.g., 12-16 million reads per sample) [2].
• Bioinformatic Analysis: Process raw sequencing reads through a standardized pipeline:
  • Quality control and adapter trimming.
  • Classify reads as microbial or host (e.g., by alignment to host and reference genome databases).
  • Perform taxonomic profiling to determine microbial community composition.
  • Calculate metrics: microbial read count, species richness, gene richness, and genome coverage [2].
• Statistical Comparison: Compare the above metrics and the relative abundance of specific taxa (e.g., Prevotella spp., M. pneumoniae) across all methods and the raw control [2].

Protocol: Validation Using a Mock Microbial Community

Objective: To confirm the observed taxonomic biases in a controlled system with a defined microbial composition.

Materials:

• Mock microbial community comprising a mix of known bacterial species, including commensals (e.g., Prevotella) and fastidious pathogens (e.g., Mycoplasma), at defined cell counts [2].
• Host genomic DNA (e.g., from human cell lines).
• Host depletion reagents, DNA extraction kits, and sequencing supplies.

Procedure:

• Spike-In Experiment: Mix the mock microbial community with a high concentration of host genomic DNA to mimic the composition of a clinical sample [2].
• Processing: Subject the mock community-host mixture to the same host depletion methods and sequencing workflow described in Protocol 3.1.
• Bias Calculation: Compare the observed abundance of each species in the sequencing data post-depletion to its known abundance in the original mock community. Calculate a bias factor for each method and taxon [2].

Workflow for Bias Assessment This diagram outlines the core experimental procedure for benchmarking host depletion methods, from sample processing to data analysis, including an optional validation step using a mock community.

Mechanisms and Implications of Taxonomic Bias

The observed taxonomic biases stem from multiple technical factors inherent to host depletion methodologies. Pre-extraction methods rely on differential lysis of human and microbial cells, but microorganisms with fragile cell walls (e.g., Gram-negative bacteria) or those that are fastidious are more susceptible to collateral damage during lysis steps, leading to their underrepresentation [2]. Furthermore, a significant proportion (up to 80% in some sample types) of microbial DNA is cell-free; this DNA is inevitably lost during pre-extraction protocols designed to remove host cell-free DNA, disproportionately affecting taxa that release more extracellular DNA or are present primarily in a non-viable state [2]. The enzymatic activity of nucleases is not perfectly specific, and some bacterial genomes may be partially degraded, while chemical treatments like propidium monoazide (PMA) can variably penetrate different microbial cell types [60].

Biological and Clinical Consequences

These technical biases have direct biological and clinical repercussions. The significant diminishment of commensals like Prevotella spp. can distort our understanding of healthy microbiome baseline states and obscure ecologically important interactions [2]. Simultaneously, the reduced detection of fragile pathogens like Mycoplasma pneumoniae poses a risk of false-negative diagnoses in clinical settings, potentially delaying appropriate treatment [2]. Finally, when comparing microbiomes from different body sites, such as the upper versus lower respiratory tract, methodological biases can confound true biological signals. For instance, the limitation of oropharyngeal swabs as proxies for lower respiratory infections is exacerbated if the depletion method further alters the microbial profile [2].

Bias Sources and Impacts This diagram illustrates the logical relationship between the technical sources of taxonomic bias introduced during host depletion and their subsequent biological and clinical consequences.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Selecting appropriate reagents is fundamental to successful host depletion. The following table catalogues key solutions used in the featured experiments and the broader field.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Host Depletion Studies

Reagent / Kit Name	Function / Principle	Specific Application Note
Saponin	Detergent that selectively lyses mammalian cells without lysing many bacterial cells [2].	Effective at low concentrations (e.g., 0.025%); requires concentration optimization [2].
Benzonase / DNase I	Endonucleases that degrade unprotected DNA (e.g., host cell-free DNA) [2].	Used after lysis steps to digest host DNA released from cells. May also degrade exposed microbial DNA.
Propidium Monoazide (PMA)	DNA intercalating dye that penetulates compromised membranes; photoactivation crosslinks DNA, rendering it non-amplifiable [60].	Used to suppress signals from dead cells and cell-free DNA. Performance (O_pma) was lowest in benchmarking [2].
QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit	Commercial kit for pre-extraction host depletion using lysis and nuclease treatment [2] [60].	Showed good microbial retention in OP samples (median 21%) and a 55.3x read increase in BALF [2].
HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit	Commercial pre-extraction kit for host DNA depletion [2] [60].	Showed the highest microbial read increase (100.3x) in BALF and strong host depletion [2].
MolYsis Basic/Complete5	Commercial suite of reagents for pre-extraction host cell lysis and DNase digestion [60].	Used in various sample types; requires validation for urine and respiratory samples [60].
NEBNext Microbiome DNA Enrichment Kit	Post-extraction kit that enriches microbial DNA using methylation-dependent restriction enzymes [2] [60].	Has shown poor performance in removing host DNA from respiratory samples, consistent with other sample types [2].
QIAamp BiOstic Bacteremia Kit	DNA extraction kit without host depletion steps, suitable for low-biomass samples [60].	Ideal for a "Raw" control to compare against host-depleted samples [60].

Host DNA depletion methods are powerful tools for enhancing the sensitivity of shotgun metagenomics, but they are not without significant limitations. The data and protocols presented herein demonstrate that these methods introduce quantifiable and reproducible taxonomic biases, systematically impacting the detection of commensals and fastidious pathogens. The choice of depletion strategy should therefore be guided by the specific research question and target microorganisms. For a comprehensive thesis on host depletion, acknowledging and controlling for these biases is not optional but essential. Employing mock communities in parallel with clinical samples, as detailed in the experimental protocols, provides a critical strategy for quantifying bias and ensuring that observed microbial profiles reflect biology, not methodological artifact.

Correlating Microbial Read Enrichment with Improved Diagnostic Sensitivity in Patient Samples

Host DNA depletion has emerged as a critical sample preparation step in shotgun metagenomic sequencing, particularly for clinical samples where microbial DNA can be overwhelmed by host nucleic acids. Efficient host DNA removal directly correlates with microbial read enrichment, which in turn significantly enhances the sensitivity and accuracy of pathogen detection and microbiome profiling. This application note details the quantitative benefits of various host depletion methods, provides standardized protocols for their implementation, and establishes a framework for correlating microbial enrichment metrics with diagnostic performance improvements.

Performance Comparison of Host Depletion Methods

The effectiveness of host depletion methods varies significantly across sample types and specific protocols. The table below summarizes the performance characteristics of major host DNA depletion methods as demonstrated across multiple recent studies.

Table 1: Performance Metrics of Host DNA Depletion Methods Across Sample Types

Method	Mechanism	Sample Types Tested	Host Reduction	Microbial Read Increase	Key Limitations
Saponin Lysis + Nuclease (S_ase)	Selective lysis of host cells with saponin followed by DNAse digestion	BALF, Oropharyngeal swabs [2]	99.99% (4 log reduction) [2]	55.8-fold in BALF [2]	Diminishes certain pathogens (e.g., Prevotella spp., Mycoplasma pneumoniae) [2]
HostZERO Kit (K_zym)	Proprietary selective lysis	BALF, Oropharyngeal, Intestinal tissue [2] [8]	99.99% (4 log reduction) [2]	100.3-fold in BALF [2]	High bacterial DNA loss in some sample types [2]
QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit (K_qia)	Saponin-based host cell lysis	BALF, Oropharyngeal, Urine, Intestinal tissue [2] [6] [8]	~99.9% (3 log reduction) [8]	55.3-fold in BALF [2]	Variable efficiency across sample types; requires optimization [61] [8]
Microbial-Enrichment Methodology (MEM)	Mechanical bead-beating with large (1.4mm) beads to lyse host cells	Saliva, Intestinal scrapings, Intestinal biopsies [61]	1,600-fold in intestinal scrapings [61]	Enabled MAG construction from biopsies [61]	31% average bacterial loss in feces [61]
Filtration + Nuclease (F_ase)	Size-based filtration to separate microbes	BALF, Oropharyngeal swabs [2]	~99.9% (3 log reduction) [2]	65.6-fold in BALF [2]	Cannot capture cell-free microbial DNA [2]
Nanopore Adaptive Sampling	Computational rejection of host reads during sequencing	Vaginal samples, Intestinal tissue [62] [8]	7.14% host reads (vs. 87.93% control) [62]	1.70-fold total sequencing depth increase [62]	Requires long reads; can alter microbial abundance profiles [62] [8]
Novel Filtration Membrane	Electrostatic attraction to leukocytes	Blood [63]	>98% reduction in host DNA [63]	6- to 8-fold pathogen read increase [63]	Specific to nucleated cell removal in blood [63]

Impact of Microbial Read Enrichment on Diagnostic Sensitivity

Detection of Low-Abundance Pathogens

Microbial read enrichment directly enables the detection of low-abundance pathogens that would otherwise be missed. In respiratory samples, methods that increased microbial reads by 55-100-fold allowed for identification of pathogens present at very low biomass [2]. Similarly, in blood samples, a novel filtration approach that increased pathogen reads by 6- to 8-fold enabled reliable identification of low-abundance pathogens that were undetectable without enrichment [63].

Metagenome-Assembled Genome (MAG) Recovery

The sensitivity of genome-resolved metagenomics directly correlates with microbial read depth. In intestinal biopsies, the Microbial-Enrichment Methodology (MEM) enabled the first construction of metagenome-assembled genomes from bacteria and archaea at relative abundances as low as 1% [61]. In urine samples, the QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit maximized MAG recovery while effectively depleting host DNA, permitting functional characterization of the urobiome [6].

Taxonomic and Functional Resolution

Higher microbial sequencing depth improves both taxonomic classification accuracy and functional potential assessment. In respiratory microbiome studies, host depletion methods that increased microbial reads also enhanced species richness, gene richness, and genome coverage [2]. In intestinal tissue samples, Nanopore Adaptive Sampling not only increased bacterial reads but also improved metagenomic assembly quality, yielding more bacterial contigs with greater completeness and enabling recovery of antimicrobial resistance markers [8].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Filtration and Nuclease Method (F_ase) for Respiratory Samples

Table 2: Reagents and Equipment for F_ase Protocol

Item	Specification	Purpose
Filtration Unit	10 μm pore size filter membrane	Size-based separation of microbial cells from host cells
Nuclease Enzyme	Benzonase or similar DNAse	Degradation of free host DNA released during processing
Preservation Solution	25% glycerol in appropriate buffer	Cryopreservation of microbial cells during processing
Centrifuge	Refrigerated, capable of 20,000 × g	Sample processing and concentration
DNA Extraction Kit	Standard microbial DNA extraction kit	Final DNA extraction after host depletion

Step-by-Step Protocol:

• Sample Preparation: Mix fresh BALF or oropharyngeal swab sample with 25% glycerol for cryopreservation. Centrifuge at 4°C and 20,000 × g for 30 minutes. Discard supernatant and resuspend pellet in appropriate buffer [2].

• Filtration Step: Pass the resuspended sample through a 10 μm pore size filter membrane using gentle vacuum or pressure. Collect the filtrate containing microbial cells while host cells are retained on the filter [2].

• Nuclease Treatment: Treat the filtrate with nuclease enzyme (e.g., Benzonase) following manufacturer's instructions to degrade any residual free host DNA. Typical incubation: 30-60 minutes at 37°C [2] [61].

• Microbial DNA Extraction: Concentrate the nuclease-treated sample by centrifugation. Proceed with standard microbial DNA extraction using commercially available kits [2].

• Quality Control: Quantify host and microbial DNA using qPCR with host-specific (e.g., human β-globin) and universal bacterial (e.g., 16S rRNA) primers. Assess host depletion efficiency by calculating the ratio of microbial to host DNA [2] [6].

Microbial-Enrichment Methodology (MEM) for Tissue Samples

Step-by-Step Protocol:

• Mechanical Lysis: Transfer tissue biopsy (typically 5-20 mg) to a tube containing 1.4 mm ceramic beads and lysis buffer. Perform bead-beating at optimized conditions to preferentially lyse host cells while leaving bacterial cells intact [61].

• Enzymatic Treatment: Add Benzonase to degrade accessible extracellular nucleic acids, including DNA from dead lysed microbes. Incubate for 10-15 minutes at room temperature [61].

• Proteinase K Digestion: Add Proteinase K to further lyse host cells and degrade host histones for DNA release. Incubate at 56°C for 10 minutes [61].

• Microbial DNA Extraction: Proceed with standard microbial DNA extraction. The entire protocol from sample to DNA is completed within 20 minutes to preserve microbial community structure [61].

• Validation: Validate host depletion efficiency using qPCR and assess microbial community integrity using 16S rRNA sequencing compared to undepleted controls [61].

Nanopore Adaptive Sampling for Computational Host Depletion

Step-by-Step Protocol:

• Library Preparation: Prepare sequencing libraries using standard Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) protocols, either PCR-free or with minimal amplification [62].

• Reference Preparation: Compile reference sequences for depletion (human genome) and/or enrichment (microbial genomes of interest) in FASTA format [62].

• Sequencing Setup: Enable adaptive sampling in the ONT sequencing software (MinKNOW). Specify reference files and set parameters for read rejection (depletion) or acceptance (enrichment) [62].

• Sequencing and Real-Time Analysis: Initiate sequencing. The software will map reads in real-time against reference sequences and eject reads matching depletion criteria (host DNA) while retaining reads of interest (microbial DNA) [62].

• Data Analysis: Compare the percentage of microbial reads, total sequencing yield, and microbial diversity metrics between adaptive sampling and conventional sequencing runs [62].

Workflow Integration and Decision Framework

Diagram 1: Host depletion method selection based on sample type and requirements. The decision pathway guides researchers to optimal methods based on sample characteristics and sensitivity needs.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Host DNA Depletion Studies

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function in Host Depletion
Commercial Kits	QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit (Qiagen), HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit (Zymo), MolYsis Complete5 (Molzym)	Integrated protocols for selective host cell lysis and microbial DNA isolation
Enzymes	Saponin (0.025-0.5%), Benzonase, Proteinase K	Selective host cell membrane disruption and free DNA degradation
Filtration Materials	10 μm pore filters, Leukocyte-specific filtration membranes [63]	Size-based or charge-based separation of host cells from microbes
Centrifugation Reagents	Density gradient media (Percoll, Ficoll)	Differential separation based on cell density
DNA Quantification	qPCR primers for host genes (β-globin) and bacterial 16S rRNA	Accurate measurement of host depletion efficiency and microbial recovery
Sequencing Standards	ZymoBIOMICS Microbial Community Standard [62]	Validation of methodological biases and quantification accuracy

The correlation between microbial read enrichment and improved diagnostic sensitivity is firmly established across diverse sample types and host depletion methodologies. The quantitative framework presented herein enables researchers to select appropriate depletion strategies based on sample characteristics and sensitivity requirements. As host depletion methods continue to evolve, standardization of protocols and validation metrics will be essential for translating microbial read enrichment into clinically actionable diagnostic insights. Future developments in both wet-lab and computational depletion approaches promise to further enhance the sensitivity of metagenomic sequencing for low-biomass infections and complex microbiome samples.

Conclusion

Host DNA depletion is no longer an optional step but a fundamental prerequisite for sensitive and cost-effective metagenomic sequencing in clinical settings. The landscape of methods is diverse, with no universal solution; the optimal choice is highly dependent on sample type, expected microbial load, and specific research questions. As 2025 research confirms, while all effective methods significantly increase microbial reads, they can introduce compositional biases and require careful optimization and validation. The future of host depletion lies in the development of more gentle, unbiased methods and the intelligent combination of pre- and post-extraction techniques. For biomedical research, mastering these workflows is pivotal for unlocking the full potential of shotgun metagenomics to discover novel pathogens, characterize complex microbiomes, and ultimately transform the diagnosis and treatment of infectious diseases.

References

• 1. Metagenomic Sequencing: Strategies for Host DNA Removal [https://www.cd-genomics.com/microbioseq/resource-metagenomic-sequencing-host-dna-removal.html]
• 2. Benefits and challenges of host depletion methods in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41522-025-00762-2]
• 3. Comparison between 16S rRNA and shotgun sequencing ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82726-y]
• 4. Optimization of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12436562/]
• 5. Host DNA depletion methods and genome-centric ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10826364/]
• 6. Evaluating urine volume and host depletion methods to ... [https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-025-02191-x]
• 7. Impact of Host DNA and Sequencing Depth on the ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01277/full]
• 8. Benchmarking microbial DNA enrichment protocols from ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10169731/]
• 9. A quantitative sequencing framework for absolute ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16224-6]
• 10. Accurate profiling of microbial communities for shotgun ... [https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-025-02249-w]
• 11. Shotgun Metagenomics Reveals Antibiotic Resistome ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1626799/full]
• 12. Shallow metagenomic shotgun sequencing improves ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1569199325015334]
• 13. Get to know Novogene's Metagenomics Host DNA ... [https://www.rapidmicrobiology.com/news/learn-about-novogene-s-metagenomics-host-dna-removal-service]
• 14. Adaptive sampling with Oxford Nanopore offers a simple way ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12529027/]
• 15. Shallow shotgun sequencing reduces technical variation in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-33489-1]
• 16. A breath of fresh air in microbiome science [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10688782/]
• 17. Comparison of Three DNA Isolation Methods and Two ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12028492/]
• 18. Improving saliva shotgun metagenomics by chemical host ... [https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-018-0426-3]
• 19. Host DNA depletion on frozen human respiratory samples ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-024-07290-3]
• 20. Advances in Host Depletion and Pathogen Enrichment ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525157824001284]
• 21. Human and Extracellular DNA Depletion for Metagenomic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6435281/]
• 22. Host-DNA Depletion Solutions for Metagenomic Diagnostics [https://www.arcticzymes.com/application/host-cell-dna-depletion-prior-to-diagnostic-metagenomic-analysis]
• 23. Methylation-based enrichment facilitates low-cost ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-20427-9]
• 24. Enrichment-based DNA methylation analysis using ... - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3535705/]
• 25. Standardized sample preparation of paediatric ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12634934/]
• 26. An optimized workflow for MS-based quantitative proteomics ... [https://clinicalproteomicsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12014-023-09404-1]
• 27. Handling Blood Samples - 5 Good Practices [https://audubonbio.com/blog/5-good-practices-for-handling-blood-samples/]
• 28. Optimizing Urine Processing Protocols for Protein and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4872872/]
• 29. Optimizing Urine Processing Protocols for Protein ... - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27212868/]
• 30. Lessons from the Lab: Optimizing Tissue Processing [https://www.leicabiosystems.com/educational-resources/webinars/lessons-from-the-laboratory-optimizing-your-tissue-processing/]
• 31. Evaluation of Host Depletion and Extraction Methods for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9045270/]
• 32. Evaluation of methods for the reduction of contaminating ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-78773-6]
• 33. DNA Extraction and Host Depletion Methods Significantly ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8574158/]
• 34. Guidelines for preventing and reporting contamination in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-025-02035-2]
• 35. Contamination in Low Microbial Biomass Microbiome Studies [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0966842X18302531]
• 36. Blanking on blanks: few insect microbiota studies control for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11980574/]
• 37. Strategies to Mitigate Common DNA Contamination in ... [https://www.cd-genomics.com/resource-dna-contamination-in-microbial-sequencing.html]
• 38. Host DNA depletion methods and genome-centric ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38054728/]
• 39. Impact of study design, contamination, and data ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40767516/]
• 40. DAGIP: alleviating cell-free DNA sequencing biases with ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11887355/]
• 41. Evaluation of variability in cell-free DNA extraction ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-06563-z]
• 42. Benzonase® Nuclease for Microbiome Workflows [https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/technical-documents/technical-article/genomics/dna-and-rna-purification/benzonase-nuclease-microbiome-workflows?srsltid=AfmBOorTqVwhDuflWt-ZGMPovfme0XtoOzOsrjyrtSXXkBBRB-Z22byo]
• 43. Reconstruction of the personal information from human ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-023-01381-3]
• 44. HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit [https://www.zymoresearch.com/products/hostzero-microbial-dna-kit?srsltid=AfmBOooBD33yiI4nz2aEb6TgGZrQyNy9cHa3zVu3DdqUJIeKIod97rrB]
• 45. Evaluation of DNA extraction kits for long-read shotgun ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-80660-3]
• 46. Optimizing target-to-total DNA ratio in eDNA studies [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12579850/]
• 47. Benchmarking short-read metagenomics tools for removing ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11878760/]
• 48. Bioinformatic approaches to blood and tissue microbiome ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12018304/]
• 49. Benchmarking microbial DNA enrichment protocols from ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2023.1184473/full]
• 50. SPINeasy ® Host Depletion Microbial DNA Kit, 50 Preps [https://www.mpbio.com/us/u-spineasy-host-depletion-microbial-dna-kit-116545050?srsltid=AfmBOooMP8uHl8R4hHikSypn9s7EZsEmk5wp3o7EtWfEf9HO0eIRUjbg]
• 51. Host DNA depletion on frozen human respiratory samples ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10854296/]
• 52. QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit | Microbial DNA Isolation [https://www.qiagen.com/us/products/discovery-and-translational-research/dna-rna-purification/dna-purification/microbial-dna/qiaamp-dna-microbiome-kit]
• 53. for Microbiome Analyses | Zymo Research Corp Host DNA Depletion [https://www.zymoresearch.com/blogs/blog/addition-by-subtraction-host-dna-depletion-for-microbiome-analyses]
• 54. ChIP provides 10-fold microbial DNA enrichment from ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11845529/]
• 55. HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit [https://www.zymoresearch.com/products/hostzero-microbial-dna-kit?srsltid=AfmBOor8husI2D8EZbU9fd8HQZzoFFIa07NzRYn0-amd9rJp4VjhY_VC]
• 56. DNA Isolation Products [https://www.molzym.com/dna-isolation-products]
• 57. ChIP provides 10-fold microbial DNA enrichment from ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11033-025-10330-8]
• 58. Clinical validation of an AI-based blood testing device for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-025-03933-y]
• 59. Development and validation of mortality risk prediction model ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12378097/]
• 60. Evaluating urine volume and host depletion methods to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12490163/]
• 61. Microbial-enrichment method enables high-throughput ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10885704/]
• 62. Evaluation of microbiome enrichment and host DNA ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-08003-8]
• 63. a novel filtration and targeted next-generation sequencing ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1538265/full]