This protocol is designed to enable high-throughput sequencing and identification of microbial communities in environmental samples, specifically bat feces (guano) and urine. The use of bead beating or freeze–thaw cycling facilitates lysis of cells possessing cell walls. In bat guano samples, the suspension resulting from storage in a liquid nucleic acid preserving agent is often viscous or semi-solid (Figure 1A). The use of sterile 0.5 mm zirconium/silicon beads efficiently disrupts the guano suspension, facilitating lysis of cell wall-containing organisms as well as any tissue material present. The resulting supernatant contains intracellular contents, including nucleic acids. In contrast, urine stored in nucleic acid preserving agent remains a fully liquid suspension (Figure 1B). Since few visibly intact cells are typically present in these samples, a limited number of freeze–thaw cycles can facilitate release of intracellular contents through cell lysis.

Figure 1. Environmental samples preserved for DNA extraction. (A) Bat guano sample suspended in nucleic acid preservation reagent following removal from −80°C storage and thawing prior to processing. (B) Bat urine sample preserved in nucleic acid preservation reagent following removal from −80°C storage and thawing prior to processing. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
DNA extraction using a column-based kit generally yielded more DNA from guano samples than from urine samples due to the higher biomass content of guano. DNA yields obtained from 400 µL guano or 200 µL urine samples are summarized in Table 2. Fluorometric quantification was found to be more useful than ultraviolet-visible spectrophotometry for estimating template volumes required for downstream PCR amplification. Freeze–thaw-based extraction was also evaluated for guano samples but produced lower DNA yields than column-based extraction. In some cases, filtration through a 0.22 µm syringe filter was performed prior to extraction to reduce visible particulate contaminants and minimize column clogging. However, this approach also resulted in lower DNA yields, likely due to DNA loss during filtration.
| Sample Number | PCR Product Concentration
(ng/µL) | End-Prepared DNA Concentration
(ng/µL) | Femtomoles Taken for Barcoding (fmol) | Pooled Barcoded Library Concentration (ng/µL) | Adapter-Ligated Library Concentration (ng/µL) |
| 1 | 7.5 | 2.11 | 216 femtomoles each (equivalent to ~200 ng) | 3.42 | 3.68 |
| 2 | 6.14 | 3.5 |
| 3 | 7.32 | 3.59 |
| 4 | 4.1 | 1.47 |
| 5 | 5.55 | 3.35 |
| 6 | 4.96 | 0.77 |
| 7 | 3.38 | 2.85 |
| 8 | 7.61 | 4.99 |
| 9 | 3.5 | 0.95 |
| 10 | 6.77 | 3.47 |
| 11 | 4.19 | 2.63 |
| 12 | 3.42 | 3.1 |
| 13 | 4.98 | 4.6 |
| 14 | 9.13 | 5.5 |
| 15 | 38.5 | 22.2 |
| 16 | 6.85 | 0.77 |
| 17 | 13.8 | 10.13 |
| 18 | 6.77 | 4.15 |
| 19 | 4.38 | 6.77 |
| 20 | 6.94 | 1.94 |
| 21 | 4.38 | 1.28 |
| 22 | 5.54 | 1.36 |
| 23 | 4.22 | 3.25 |
| 24 | 5.96 | 2.2 |
| EC | Below quantification limit | Below quantification limit | 1 µL input |
| NC | Below quantification limit | Below quantification limit | 1 µL input |
Table 2: DNA concentrations measured during library preparation for representative 16S metabarcoding samples. PCR-product and end-prepared DNA concentrations were determined by fluorometric quantification. Extraction control (EC) and PCR negative control (NC) samples remained below the quantification limit throughout library preparation. Each sample was taken forward for barcoding using 216 fmol of DNA, corresponding to approximately 200 ng for a 1.5 kb amplicon. The pooled barcoded library concentration and final adapter-ligated library concentration are reported for the combined library preparation workflow. Quantification of the pooled barcoded library is optional.
Amplification of the full-length 16S rRNA gene was optimized using a touch-up PCR strategy. Five initial cycles performed at a lower annealing temperature facilitated primer binding and generation of sufficient template molecules, whereas the subsequent 30 cycles at a higher annealing temperature increased amplification specificity for bacterial and archaeal targets. Initial attempts using 35 cycles at the higher annealing temperature alone did not yield amplification from guano-derived DNA samples used during optimization. DNA extracted from cultured Escherichia coli served as the positive control. For 18S amplification, implementation of a previously reported primer set and thermal-cycling profile successfully amplified the target fragment from nearly all tested samples. Performing PCR reactions in triplicate increased the amount of purified amplicon recovered after magnetic-bead purification, thereby providing sufficient input DNA for downstream DNA repair and end-preparation reactions.
Representative PCR products analyzed by agarose gel electrophoresis are shown in Figure 2. Twenty-three guano samples and one PCR negative control were used to generate the 16S gel (Figure 2A), whereas twenty-four guano samples and one PCR negative control were used to generate the 18S gel (Figure 2B). Full-length 16S amplicons exhibited variation in fragment length among samples, potentially reflecting differences in dominant bacterial and archaeal communities. Similar variation was observed among both guano and urine samples.

Figure 2. Agarose-gel verification of metabarcoding PCR amplification. (A) Representative agarose gel showing amplification of full-length 16S rRNA gene amplicons generated using universal bacterial and archaeal primers. (B) Representative agarose gel showing amplification of 18S rRNA gene amplicons generated using universal eukaryotic primers. NC, negative control; PC, positive control; bp, base pairs; kb, kilobases. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Because PCR amplification and magnetic-bead purification were used, the quantity of purified amplicon obtained from individual reactions varied, which was reflected in fluorometric DNA quantification results (Table 2). It was observed that using the maximum available amount of purified amplicon for DNA repair and end preparation generally resulted in sufficient recovery of end-prepared DNA following magnetic-bead purification.
Sequencing-run configuration through the sequencing software interface determines several output characteristics, including read-length ranges, quality-score thresholds, and output-file formats. Sequencing yield increased progressively throughout the run until the available nanopores approached exhaustion. Under the conditions used here, a typical 72 h sequencing run generated multiple gigabases of sequence data (Figure 3A).

Figure 3. Representative sequencing-run metrics generated by nanopore sequencing software. (A) Summary of sequencing output, including total bases generated, total reads, and N50 read length. (B) Distribution of sequencing yield among individual barcodes. Asterisks indicate extraction-control and negative-control barcodes. (C) Distribution of read quality scores for passed and failed reads. (D) Pore activity and sequencing performance throughout the sequencing run. Gb, gigabases; Mb, megabases; M, million; kb, kilobases; h, hours; min, minutes. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Sequencing run reports provide summary statistics, including pore-health metrics throughout the experiment. Figure 3B shows read outputs obtained from ECs and PCR NCs, which were processed alongside samples throughout library preparation and sequencing to assess potential cross-contamination. The EC and NC samples generated substantially fewer reads than amplicon-containing samples. Any sequencing run in which control samples generate read counts comparable to biological samples should be considered compromised. Representative sequencing-run statistics, barcode-level output distributions, quality-score distributions, and pore-activity metrics are shown in Figure 3.
Taxonomic classification of sequencing reads was performed using the EPI2ME wf-16S workflow. Detailed workflow configuration and representative screenshots of the graphical user interface are provided in Supplementary File 1 (Figures S1–S18), while all analysis parameters are summarized in Table 1. Based on agarose gel electrophoresis results, expected amplicon sizes were used to define minimum and maximum read-length thresholds during analysis. The workflow supports analysis of individual sequence-read files, alignment files, or entire directories containing sequencing outputs. Depending on the selected workflow configuration, users may classify reads against reference databases such as National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)-derived 16S/18S databases, SILVA databases, or locally installed custom databases. Appropriate selection of abundance thresholds, minimum percent coverage, minimum percent identity, and desired taxonomic rank enables generation of detailed abundance profiles for detected taxa.
The partial 18S amplicons generated using this protocol typically provide sufficient information for taxonomic assignment to approximately the genus level but may not contain enough phylogenetically informative sites for robust phylogenetic analyses. Representative outputs generated using a demonstration dataset are shown in Supplementary File 1, including sequencing-summary statistics (Figure S17) and taxonomic-classification results (Figure S18).
SUPPLEMENTARY FILE:
Supplementary File 1. Step-by-step configuration of the bioinformatics 16S workflow for taxonomic classification of nanopore metabarcoding data. This supplementary file provides a graphical walkthrough of the bioinformatics workflow used for taxonomic classification of Nanopore-derived 16S and 18S metabarcoding data. The file illustrates workflow launch, input-file selection, classification settings, reference-database configuration, minimap2 parameter selection, report and output settings, advanced workflow options, workflow execution, and representative output reports. All analysis parameters and thresholds used in this study are summarized in Table 1 of the main manuscript. Please click here to download this file.