ArticleMicrobial ecology2014
How to deal with PCR contamination in molecular microbial ecology.
Article in Microbial ecology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validating digital polymerase chain reaction for 16S rRNA gene amplification from low biomass environmental samples.ISME communications · 2025Article
- An update on immunological and molecular tests and their impact in infectious uveitis.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2023Review
- The Madness of Microbiome: Attempting To Find Consensus "Best Practice" for 16S Microbiome Studies.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2018Review
- DNA decontamination methods for internal quality management in clinical PCR laboratories.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2018Article
- Article
- 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microbial ecology studies often use broad-range PCR primers to obtain community profiles. Contaminant microbial DNA present in PCR reagents may therefore be amplified together with template DNA, resulting in unrepeatable data which may be difficult to interpret, especially when template DNA is present at low levels. One possible decontamination method consists in pre-treating PCR mixes with restriction enzymes before heat-inactivating those enzymes prior to the start of the PCR. However, this method has given contrasting results, including a reduction in PCR sensitivity. In this study, we tested the efficiency of two different enzymes (DNase 1 and Sau3AI) as well as the effect of dithiothreitol (DTT), a strong reducing agent, in the decontamination procedure. Our results indicate that enzymatic treatment does reduce contamination levels. However, DNase 1 caused substantial reductions in the bacterial richness found in communities, which we interpret as a result of its incomplete inactivation by heat treatment. DTT did help maintain bacterial richness in mixes treated with DNase 1. No such issues arose when using Sau3AI, which therefore seems a more appropriate enzyme. In our study, four operational taxonomic units (OTU) decreased in frequency and relative abundance after treatment with Sau3AI and hence are likely to represent contaminant bacterial DNA. We found higher within-sample similarity in community structure after treatment with Sau3AI, probably better reflecting the initial bacterial communities. We argue that the presence of contaminant bacterial DNA may have consequences in the interpretation of ecological data, especially when using low levels of template DNA from highly diverse communities. We advocate the use of such decontaminating approaches as a standard procedure in microbial ecology.
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.