ArticleApplied microbiology and biotechnology2013
Biases during DNA extraction of activated sludge samples revealed by high throughput sequencing.
Article in Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 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
74 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative metagenomics using a portable protocol.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026Article
- Optimization of the Quantification of Antibiotic Resistance Genes in Media from the Yangtze River Estuary.Toxics · 2026Article
- Phyllosphere microbiomes uncovered: Research trends, geographic disparities, and key microbial players.Genetics and molecular biology · 2026Article
- Toward reproducible pig gut microbiome profiling through standardized methodologies.ISME communications · 2026Article
- Improved Sensitivity of Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction and Next Generation Sequencing for Detection of Salmonella spp. in Mixed Environmental Communities Using Whole Genome Amplification.MicrobiologyOpen · 2025Article
- Microbes with plastic-degrading and pathogenic potentials are present on plastics in the final polishing pond of a wastewater treatment plant.Environmental microbiome · 2025Article
- Evaluation of DNA Extraction Methods for Microbial Community Profiling in Deadwood Decomposition.MicrobiologyOpen · 2024Article
- Article
- Towards predicting the geographical origin of ancient samples with metagenomic data.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Comparison of DNA extraction methods on different sample matrices within the same terrestrial ecosystem.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Novel Techniques and Models for Studying the Role of the Gut Microbiota in Drug Metabolism.European journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics · 2024Review
- Improving the efficiency of DNA extraction from iron incrustations and oilfield-produced water.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Assessment of DNA extraction methods for human gut mycobiome analysis.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Benchmarking DNA isolation methods for marine metagenomics.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Soil bacterial community composition is more stable in kiwifruit orchards relative to phyllosphere communities over time.Environmental microbiome · 2023Article
- Assessment of metagenomic workflows using a newly constructed human gut microbiome mock community.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2023Article
- Evaluation of DNA Extraction Methods for Reliable Quantification ofBiosensors · 2023Article
- Rapid Reverse Purification DNA Extraction Approaches to Identify Microbial Pathogens in Wastewater.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- Reduced immunomodulatory metabolite concentrations in peri-transplant fecal samples from heart allograft recipients.Frontiers in transplantation · 2023Article
- Grinding Beads Influence Microbial DNA Extraction from Organic-Rich Sub-Seafloor Sediment.Microorganisms · 2022Article
14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Standardization of DNA extraction is a fundamental issue of fidelity and comparability in investigations of environmental microbial communities. Commercial kits for soil or feces are often adopted for studies of activated sludge because of a lack of specific kits, but they have never been evaluated regarding their effectiveness and potential biases based on high throughput sequencing. In this study, seven common DNA extraction kits were evaluated, based on not only yield/purity but also sequencing results, using two activated sludge samples (two sub-samples each, i.e. ethanol-fixed and fresh, as-is). The results indicate that the bead-beating step is necessary for DNA extraction from activated sludge. The two kits without the bead-beating step yielded very low amounts of DNA, and the least abundant operational taxonomic units (OTUs), and significantly underestimated the Gram-positive Actinobacteria, Nitrospirae, Chloroflexi, and Alphaproteobacteria and overestimated Gammaproteobacteria, Deltaproteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, and the rare phyla whose cell walls might have been readily broken. Among the other five kits, FastDNA(@) SPIN Kit for Soil extracted the most and the purest DNA. Although the number of total OTUs obtained using this kit was not the highest, the abundant OTUs and abundance of Actinobacteria demonstrated its efficiency. The three MoBio kits and one ZR kit produced fair results, but had a relatively low DNA yield and/or less Actinobacteria-related sequences. Moreover, the 50 % ethanol fixation increased the DNA yield, but did not change the sequenced microbial community in a significant way. Based on the present study, the FastDNA SPIN kit for Soil is recommended for DNA extraction of activated sludge samples. More importantly, the selection of the DNA extraction kit must be done carefully if the samples contain dominant lysing-resistant groups, such as Actinobacteria and Nitrospirae.
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.