Link labeling to identity
Fraction sequencing shows which taxa occur across the density gradient. This connects the labeling experiment with organisms rather than reporting only a bulk isotope signal.
DNA-SIP Fraction Sequencing and qSIP Analysis Services
Which members of a complex community actively assimilate a labeled substrate, and how strongly does incorporation differ among taxa or treatments? CD Genomics combines DNA-SIP fraction sequencing with quantitative stable isotope probing analysis to connect density shifts with microbial identities. Starting from properly documented density fractions, matched unlabeled controls and quantitative measurements, we help turn a labeling experiment into taxon-resolved evidence for substrate assimilation or DNA synthesis.
Build evidence across the complete density gradient
- Map labeled DNA to microbial taxa by sequencing consistently processed density fractions.
- Correct for natural DNA-density differences with matched unlabeled controls for each experimental context.
- Estimate taxon-specific density shifts and isotope enrichment when density, abundance and replication support qSIP.
DNA density fractions link stable-isotope incorporation with microbial identities.
Distinguish Labeled DNA from Naturally Dense DNA
DNA stable isotope probing separates DNA by buoyant density after isotope labeling. Sequencing the fractions identifies the organisms represented across the gradient. Quantitative SIP adds fraction-level abundance and density measurements plus unlabeled controls to estimate taxon-specific density shifts and, where justified, isotope enrichment. The controls are essential because DNA density also varies with base composition.
Use matched unlabeled controls
Comparing each taxon's density distribution against a control addresses natural density differences. This makes an isotope-assimilation interpretation more defensible than selecting a heavy fraction alone.
Quantify when the inputs support it
Fraction density, abundance and replication support weighted density and isotope-enrichment estimates. Uncertainty estimates help distinguish supported incorporation from weak shifts.
The upstream experiment involves stable-isotope labeling or incubation, DNA extraction and density-gradient separation, commonly using CsCl ultracentrifugation. Our standard sequencing-and-analysis scope starts with supplied fractions and measurements. Bacterial 16S sequencing profiles taxa across fractions; optional shotgun sequencing investigates genes or genomes in selected fractions. Labeling, gradient separation and any additional fraction measurements must be assigned explicitly in the study plan.
| Approach | Primary question | Evidence produced |
|---|---|---|
| Heavy-fraction DNA-SIP | Which taxa or genes are enriched in selected dense DNA? | Qualitative or comparative enrichment, interpreted against controls. |
| Gradient-wide DNA-SIP | How does each taxon distribute across labeled and control gradients? | Taxon profiles and evidence of a density shift across fractions. |
| qSIP | How much isotope-derived density shift is supported for an eligible taxon? | Weighted density differences, uncertainty and isotope-enrichment estimates when inputs permit. |
| Metagenomic SIP | Which genomes or functional genes occur in isotope-responsive DNA? | Genome- or gene-level profiles across selected or quantitative fraction designs. |
These scopes require different inputs and support different claims. Sequencing only a pooled heavy fraction may identify enriched candidates, but it does not retain the gradient information required for taxon-specific quantitative density shifts. We review the planned evidence level before library preparation so sequencing effort matches the biological question.
Fraction profiling can use bacterial 16S sequencing or metagenomic sequencing . Microbial bioinformatics supports integration of gradient and sequence measurements.
From Supplied Fractions to Assimilation Evidence
Every fraction must remain linked to its parent sample, measured density and experimental treatment. This traceability allows sequence abundance to be interpreted along the gradient and prevents a dense fraction from being treated as evidence of labeling without the appropriate control comparison.
Review the labeling design
Check isotope, substrate, matched unlabeled controls, incubation period and biological replication. Confirm the comparison and the biological interpretation the tracer is expected to support.
Receive fraction inputs
Review fraction identifiers, densities, DNA quantities and available marker-gene abundance measurements. Flag missing, pooled or low-yield fractions before deciding which analyses remain valid.
Sequence the gradient
Apply consistent library preparation and sequencing to the agreed fractions and controls. Keep fraction-level batch information and negative controls traceable through data processing.
Estimate incorporation
Combine taxon distributions with fraction measurements, assess density shifts and interpret assimilation evidence. Rank supported incorporators and report uncertainty or unresolved taxa without forcing classification.
Supplied DNA fractions and measurements enter sequencing and isotope-assimilation analysis.
The upstream labeling and density-separation design should be finalized before samples are generated. Isotope atom enrichment, incubation duration, number of biological replicates, density resolution and quantitative measurements directly affect what can be estimated later. Early review is especially useful when shotgun sequencing is planned because the number of fractions can expand library count quickly.
Prepare Fraction-Level Inputs for Reliable qSIP
Submit every density fraction separately with its parent sample, fraction order and measured buoyant density. Do not pool fractions merely to reach an input target because pooling removes the gradient information used by SIP and qSIP.
| Input | Recommended amount | Concentration | Required measurement | Important note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fraction DNA for 16S profiling | ≥10 ng per fraction when feasible | ≥1 ng/µL when feasible | Fluorometric DNA quantity for each fraction | Low-yield fractions are reviewed as a complete gradient series. |
| Fraction DNA for shotgun sequencing | ≥20 ng per fraction | ≥5 ng/µL preferred | Fluorometric DNA quantity and fraction volume | Higher input may be needed for complex or host-rich samples. |
| Matched unlabeled-control fractions | Same fraction scheme as labeled samples | Use consistent processing | Buoyant density, volume and quantitative DNA or marker measurement | Controls define each taxon's natural density distribution. |
| Existing fraction sequence data | Complete data for the included gradient | Not applicable | Fraction-to-library map and QC records | Incomplete gradients limit quantitative density-shift estimates. |
Purity ratios can be unreliable for very low-yield fractions, so fluorescence-based quantity, fraction traceability and library feasibility are reviewed together. Discuss low-input fractions before concentration or cleanup to avoid selective loss.
Service boundary: standard scope begins with customer-prepared fraction DNA or compatible sequence data. Isotope incubation, living-culture work and density-gradient fractionation are upstream unless separately arranged.
Reconstruct Taxon-Specific Density Distributions
The analysis follows each taxon across the density gradient, rather than classifying individual fractions in isolation. Labeled and control distributions are compared to estimate shifts, evaluate uncertainty and determine which organisms have sufficient evidence for isotope incorporation.
Gradient-design and metadata review
Confirm the isotope, substrate, incubation duration, labeled and unlabeled controls, biological replication and fraction scheme before analysis. Fraction order, buoyant density, recovered volume, DNA quantity and the relationship between fractions and sequencing libraries must remain traceable. The service can be scoped for customer-prepared fraction DNA or compatible sequencing data; conclusions are limited when density and quantitative measurements are missing.
Metadata review checks that sample identifiers, fraction order and density values are internally consistent and that all planned labeled–control comparisons have compatible coverage. Incubation time and tracer form are retained for interpretation because the same density shift may reflect primary assimilation, biomass turnover or secondary transfer depending on the experiment.
Fraction sequencing QC
Process 16S reads into a consistent feature table or profile shotgun fractions with a common genome or gene reference. Review negative controls, low-yield fractions, read depth, taxon prevalence and replicate coverage before quantitative comparison.
Fractions with very low DNA may produce uneven library complexity or contaminant-sensitive profiles. We inspect read depth, feature prevalence, control behavior and replicate coverage across the gradient before calculating shifts. A single heavy fraction is not treated as sufficient evidence when the surrounding density distribution or the unlabeled control does not support the same taxon-level comparison.
For amplicon data, feature-level profiles preserve taxonomic resolution as far as the marker permits. For shotgun data, reads may be assigned to genes, reference genomes or reconstructed genomes according to coverage and study goals. The reporting unit is selected before qSIP calculations so abundance estimates remain comparable across fractions.
Gradient reconstruction
Align fraction identifiers with measured density, volume and quantitative abundance. Construct taxon-specific distributions across each labeled and unlabeled gradient.
Natural genomic GC content also affects DNA buoyant density. The unlabeled gradient therefore provides the taxon-specific background needed to interpret a shift after labeling. Fraction abundance can be combined with an independent quantitative measurement when the design supports qSIP, allowing the analysis to distinguish redistribution across the gradient from changes driven only by relative sequencing composition.
Weighted mean density is calculated from the density and estimated abundance of a taxon across fractions. Comparing its weighted density between labeled and control gradients provides a taxon-specific shift. Features that occur in too few fractions or at insufficient abundance can produce unstable estimates and are filtered or reported as unresolved according to documented criteria.
Quantitative isotope estimates
Calculate abundance-weighted mean density differences, then apply an isotope-appropriate conversion to atom-fraction excess where the tracer, nucleic-acid composition assumptions and required measurements support it. Estimate confidence intervals from biological replication with an appropriate resampling strategy.
Reporting can include supported density shifts, estimated isotope incorporation and derived growth-related quantities only when the corresponding inputs and assumptions are available. Confidence intervals and detection thresholds accompany taxon-level estimates. Features with insufficient abundance, incomplete gradient recovery or inconsistent replicate behavior remain unclassified instead of being forced into labeled and unlabeled groups.
Density resolution and organism abundance influence precision. Rare taxa and poorly resolved gradients generally have wider uncertainty, so significance is evaluated against replicate variation rather than by the direction of a shift alone. For water-isotope experiments, growth-related calculations require the appropriate model inputs and are reported separately from substrate-specific assimilation claims.
Biological interpretation
Compare supported assimilation patterns across treatments. Consider incubation duration, cross-feeding and incomplete recovery when distinguishing direct substrate use from downstream incorporation.
| Result | What it supports | What it does not prove alone |
|---|---|---|
| Taxon detected in a heavy fraction | Presence of that taxon's DNA at the measured density. | Isotope incorporation without an unlabeled baseline and gradient context. |
| Positive labeled–control density shift | A taxon-specific change consistent with tracer incorporation. | Direct use of the original substrate when cross-feeding is plausible. |
| Estimated atom-fraction excess | Quantitative isotope enrichment under the selected qSIP model. | Bulk substrate-removal rate or a specific biochemical pathway. |
| Metagenomic enrichment | Genome or gene candidates associated with responsive DNA. | Expression or pathway activity without complementary evidence. |
The analytical rationale is informed by published quantitative SIP methods ; the project design determines which components apply.
Fraction profiles, densities and quantitative measurements support taxon-specific shift estimates.
Understand the Result View
Illustrative labeled and control density distributions explain the meaning of a taxon-specific shift.
Receive Traceable Profiles, Incorporation Estimates and Interpretation
The report connects every quantitative result to its gradient, control comparison and eligibility checks. This lets you distinguish supported incorporators from taxa that were detected but could not be estimated reliably.
Fraction and taxon profiles
Inspect feature, taxon, gene or genome distributions across each measured density gradient, together with sequencing and fraction-level QC observations.
Supported density shifts
Review weighted mean densities, labeled–control differences, confidence intervals and classification status for eligible taxa.
qSIP interpretation
Evaluate isotope-enrichment estimates where supported, compare treatments and prioritize taxa or genes for follow-up functional studies.
The interpretation identifies which findings remain stable across replicates, which depend on weakly represented fractions, and which may reflect cross-feeding or incomplete experimental coverage. This evidence ranking is intended to guide follow-up targets rather than turn every detected taxon into a claimed substrate user.
Identify Active Microbes in Their Community Context
Carbon-substrate assimilation
When community members may differ in their use of a carbon source, compare taxon-specific density shifts after an appropriate labeled-substrate exposure. The results help nominate primary or downstream incorporators and select taxa for shorter time courses, isolate-based work or targeted validation.
Nitrogen assimilation studies
When nitrogen acquisition may differ across treatments or environments, compare taxon-specific incorporation with matched unlabeled controls. Identify active groups and determine whether field and laboratory conditions support the same ecological interpretation.
Growth-related labeling
When the question concerns DNA synthesis across the community, use an appropriate heavy-water design to estimate taxon-level labeling. Separate growth-related interpretation from the use of a particular carbon or nitrogen substrate, then compare responders across conditions.
Metagenomic fraction sequencing can extend the question from "which taxa incorporated label?" to "which genomes or functional genes are associated with responsive DNA?" Its greater sequencing demand is most useful when functional resolution matters and sufficient DNA is available across the required fractions.
Incubation context helps distinguish primary assimilation from possible secondary labeling.
Case Study: qSIP Compares Nitrogen Assimilation in Field and Laboratory Soil
Source: Reed, K., Dang, C., Walkup, J. et al. Comparing field and lab quantitative stable isotope probing for nitrogen assimilation in soil microbes. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 91, e01849-24 (2025).
Reed and colleagues examined whether laboratory measurements of microbial nitrogen assimilation reflected activity in agricultural field soils.
They used matched field and laboratory nitrogen-15 labeling experiments at two sites. DNA density fractionation, quantitative measurements and sequencing supported genus-specific qSIP estimates; soil nitrogen-process measurements provided additional context.
Relative nitrogen assimilation estimates were generally lower in the field, and 19% of the leading assimilating genera differed between the two approaches. Weighting estimates by relative abundance reduced the fraction of differing taxa to approximately 10%.
Reed et al. (2025) found context-dependent nitrogen-assimilation estimates in field and laboratory soils.
qSIP linked isotope incorporation to microbial groups and exposed differences between experimental settings. The comparison shows why incubation context and quantitative controls matter when translating labeling results into ecological interpretation.
Choose DNA-SIP or qSIP According to the Claim You Need
Best suited to: controlled labeling studies with fractionated DNA, matched unlabeled controls and enough quantitative information to reconstruct taxon distributions. qSIP is particularly useful when a study needs taxon-resolved incorporation estimates rather than a list of organisms enriched in heavy DNA.
| Available input or goal | Recommended scope |
|---|---|
| Selected heavy and light fractions only | Comparative DNA-SIP profiling with qualitative enrichment boundaries. |
| Full gradients, densities, controls and quantitative abundance | qSIP density-shift and isotope-enrichment analysis. |
| Taxon identity is the main question | Marker-gene fraction sequencing where the target group and resolution are suitable. |
| Genome or functional-gene assignment is required | Metagenomic fraction sequencing, subject to DNA amount and project scale. |
When another approach is more suitable: ordinary community sequencing is more efficient when the study only needs composition or functional potential. Direct isotope-ratio or metabolite measurements are required for bulk process rates and chemical turnover. DNA-SIP demonstrates incorporation into newly synthesized DNA; it does not by itself prove a particular biochemical pathway or distinguish primary uptake from all secondary transfer.
For project review, provide the labeled compound and isotope, sample matrix, incubation conditions, controls and replicates, number of gradients and fractions, measured density and DNA quantity, available quantitative assays, and preferred sequencing approach. We use these details to determine whether the project supports qualitative DNA-SIP, qSIP or a metagenomic extension and to prepare a quotation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not without the labeling and fraction-level information. Ordinary sequence data do not encode the density shift needed for isotope-incorporation estimates.
They can support selected enrichment comparisons, but full qSIP generally needs a sufficiently resolved gradient and quantitative fraction measurements. We review whether the supplied design supports the requested calculation.
Not necessarily. Cross-feeding can pass labeled material to other organisms, especially over longer incubations. The interpretation considers time, controls and the biological system.
DNA buoyant density varies naturally with nucleotide composition. The matched unlabeled gradient establishes a taxon-specific baseline, so the labeled–control difference can be attributed more defensibly to isotope incorporation rather than naturally dense DNA.
Marker-gene sequencing is suitable when taxon-level incorporation is the main goal and the target community is covered by the assay. Shotgun sequencing is more appropriate when genome or functional-gene assignment is essential, but it requires sufficient DNA and substantially more sequencing across multiple fractions.
Sparse detection can make weighted-density estimates unstable and widen uncertainty. Eligibility filters consider abundance, fraction coverage and replicate consistency. Taxa that do not meet the agreed evidence criteria are reported as unresolved rather than automatically classified as unlabeled.
References
- Reed et al. Comparing field and lab quantitative stable isotope probing for nitrogen assimilation in soil microbes . Applied and Environmental Microbiology 91, e01849-24 (2025).
- Hungate et al. Quantitative Microbial Ecology through Stable Isotope Probing . Applied and Environmental Microbiology 81, 7570-7581 (2015).
- Vyshenska, D., Sampara, P., Singh, K. et al. A standardized quantitative analysis strategy for stable isotope probing metagenomics . mSystems 8, e01280-22 (2023).
For research use only. Not for clinical diagnosis, treatment or individual health assessment.
* For research purposes only, not intended for clinical diagnosis, treatment, or individual health assessments.
Please submit a detailed description of your project. We will provide you with a customized project plan to meet your research requests. You can also send emails directly to for inquiries.
Please fill out the form below: ×