  ARISA (Automated Ribosomal Intergenic Spacer Analysis) is a low-cost
technique that allows for the rapid comparison of different microbial
environments. In this study, we asked if a set of ARISA profiles can
distinguish human microbial environments from one another with the same
accuracy as results generated from 454 high throughput DNA sequencing. Using a
set of human microbial communities where the sequencing results cluster by
subject, we tested how choices made during ARISA data processing influence
clustering. We found that choice of clustering methods had a profound effect
with Ward's clustering generating profiles the most similar to 454 sequencing.
Factors such as bin size, using presence or absence calls and technical
replicate manipulation had a negligible effect on clustering. In fact, no
established bin sizing method reported in the literature performed
significantly different results than simply picking bin intervals at random. We
conclude that in an analysis of ARISA data from an ecosystem of sufficient
complexity to saturate bins, a careful choice of clustering algorithm is
essential whereas differing strategies for choosing bins are likely to have a
much less pronounced effect on the outcome of the analysis. As a tool for
distinguishing complex microbial communities, ARISA closely approximates the
results obtained from DNA sequencing at a fraction of the cost; however ARISA
fails to reproduce the sequencing results perfectly.
