ArticleMicrobial biotechnology2012
Molecular biomass and MetaTaxogenomic assessment of soil microbial communities as influenced by soil DNA extraction procedure.
Article in Microbial biotechnology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
50 citing papers in PubMed, 167 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term effect of repeated application of pig slurry digestate on microbial communities in arable soils.Heliyon · 2025Article
- Harmonized Datasets of microbiological parameters from a French national-scale soil monitoring survey.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Medicago truncatula genotype drives the plant nutritional strategy and its associated rhizosphere bacterial communities.The New phytologist · 2025Article
- Comparison of DNA extraction methods on different sample matrices within the same terrestrial ecosystem.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Long-term effects of combining anaerobic digestate with other organic waste products on soil microbial communities.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Thiothrix and Sulfurovum genera dominate bacterial mats in Slovak cold sulfur springs.Environmental microbiome · 2023Article
- Disruption of fish gut microbiota composition and holobiont's metabolome during a simulated Microcystis aeruginosa (Cyanobacteria) bloom.Microbiome · 2023Article
- Nonlinear Effects Induced by Interactions among Functional Groups of Bacteria and Fungi Regulate the Priming Effect in Malagasy Soils.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- Dynamic of bacterial and archaeal diversity in a tropical soil over 6 years of repeated organic and inorganic fertilization.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Potential of Meta-Omics to Provide Modern Microbial Indicators for Monitoring Soil Quality and Securing Food Production.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Review
- Increasing the power of interpretation for soil metaproteomics data.Microbiome · 2021Article
- Article
- Soil microbiota influences clubroot disease by modulating Plasmodiophora brassicae and Brassica napus transcriptomes.Microbial biotechnology · 2020Article
- The Influence of DNA Extraction and Lipid Removal on Human Milk Bacterial Profiles.Methods and protocols · 2020Article
- Robust DNA protocols for tropical soils.Heliyon · 2020Article
- µgreen-db: a reference database for the 23S rRNA gene of eukaryotic plastids and cyanobacteria.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Tillage intensity and pasture in rotation effectively shape soil microbial communities at a landscape scale.MicrobiologyOpen · 2019Article
- Soil parameters, land use, and geographical distance drive soil bacterial communities along a European transect.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Article
- Repertoire of the gut microbiota from stomach to colon using culturomics and next-generation sequencing.BMC microbiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three soil DNA extraction procedures (homemade protocols and commercial kit) varying in their practicability were applied to contrasting soils to evaluate their efficiency in recovering: (i) soil DNA and (ii) bacterial diversity estimated by 16S rDNA pyrosequencing. Significant differences in DNA yield were systematically observed between tested procedures. For certain soils, 10 times more DNA was recovered with one protocol than with the others. About 15,000 sequences of 16S rDNA were obtained for each sample which were clustered to draw rarefaction curves. These curves, as well as the PCA ordination of community composition based on OTU clustering, did not reveal any significant difference between procedures. Nevertheless, significant differences between procedures were highlighted by the taxonomic identification of sequences obtained at the phylum to genus levels. Depending on the soil, differences in the number of genera detected ranged from 1% to 26% between the most and least efficient procedures, mainly due to a poorer capacity to recover populations belonging to Actinobacteria, Firmicutes or Crenarchaeota. This study enabled us to rank the relative efficiencies of protocols for their recovery of soil molecular microbial biomass and bacterial diversity and to help choosing an appropriate soil DNA extraction procedure adapted to novel sequencing technologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.