ArticleBrazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology]2014
Comparison of DNA extraction protocols for microbial communities from soil treated with biochar.
Article in Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology], 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimized Method for Efficient DNA Extraction from Agricultural Soils.Methods and protocols · 2026Article
- Molecular detection and quantification of theWeed research · 2022Article
- Robust DNA protocols for tropical soils.Heliyon · 2020Article
- Article
- The impact of different DNA extraction methods on the analysis of microbial diversity of oral saliva from healthy youths by polymerase chain reaction-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis.Journal of dental sciences · 2016Article
- Dynamics of the surgical microbiota along the cardiothoracic surgery pathway.Frontiers in microbiology · 2014Article
- Soil pretreatment and fast cell lysis for direct polymerase chain reaction from forest soils for terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of fungal communities.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology]Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many studies have evaluated the effects of biochar application on soil structure and plant growth. However, there are very few studies describing the effect of biochar on native soil microbial communities. Microbial analysis of environmental samples requires accurate and reproducible methods for the extraction of DNA from samples. Because of the variety among microbial species and the strong adsorption of the phosphate backbone of the DNA molecule to biochar, extracting and purifying high quality microbial DNA from biochar-amended soil is not a trivial process and can be considerably more difficult than the extraction of DNA from other environmental samples. The aim of this study was to compare the relative efficacies of three commercial DNA extraction kits, the FastDNA® SPIN Kit for Soil (FD kit), the PowerSoil® DNA Isolation Kit (PS kit) and the ZR Soil Microbe DNA Kit Miniprep™ (ZR kit), for extracting microbial genomic DNA from sand treated with different types of biochar. The methods were evaluated by comparing the DNA yields and purity and by analysing the bacterial and fungal community profiles generated by PCR-DGGE. Our results showed that the PCR-DGGE profiles for bacterial and fungal communities were highly affected by the purity and yield of the different DNA extracts. Among the tested kits, the PS kit was the most efficient with respect to the amount and purity of recovered DNA and considering the complexity of the generated DGGE microbial fingerprint from the sand-biochar samples.
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.