Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25608871›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2015

Evaluation of methods to purify virus-like particles for metagenomic sequencing of intestinal viromes.

Manuel Kleiner, Lora V Hooper, Breck A Duerkop

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 123 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
123citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

123 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Remodelling of the gut virome after long-term fasting.NPJ biofilms and microbiomes · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. DNA Viral Size Fraction Metagenomics for Human Stool Samples.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

63 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Manuel KleinerDepartment of Immunology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA. manuel.kleiner@ucalgary.ca.
Lora V HooperDepartment of Immunology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA. lora.hooper@utsouthwestern.edu.
Breck A DuerkopDepartment of Immunology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA. breck.duerkop@utsouthwestern.edu.

Funding

Microbial Regulation of Retinol Transport and its Role in Intestinal ImmunityR01DK070855 · NIDDK · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI LORA V HOOPER · 2005 to 2026
$7.9M
The contribution of bacteriophages to host-microbe interactions in the intestineK01DK102436 · NIDDK · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI DUERKOP, BRECK A · 2014 to 2018
$581k
NIDDK NIH HHS K01 DK102436NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK070855
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundViruses are a significant component of the intestinal microbiota in mammals. In recent years, advances in sequencing technologies and data analysis techniques have enabled detailed metagenomic studies investigating intestinal viromes (collections of bacteriophage and eukaryotic viral nucleic acids) and their potential contributions to the ecology of the microbiota. An important component of virome studies is the isolation and purification of virus-like particles (VLPs) from intestinal contents or feces. Several methods have been applied to isolate VLPs from intestinal samples, yet to our knowledge, the efficiency and reproducibility between methods have not been explored. A rigorous evaluation of methods for VLP purification is critical as many studies begin to move from descriptive analyses of virus diversity to studies striving to quantitatively compare viral abundances across many samples. Therefore, reproducible VLP purification methods which allow for high sample throughput are needed. Here we compared and evaluated four methods for VLP purification using artificial intestinal microbiota samples of known bacterial and viral composition.

resultsWe compared the following four methods of VLP purification from fecal samples: (i) filtration + DNase, (ii) dithiothreitol treatment + filtration + DNase, (iii) filtration + DNase + PEG precipitation and (iv) filtration + DNase + CsCl density gradient centrifugation. Three of the four tested methods worked well for VLP purification. We observed several differences between methods related to the removal efficiency of bacterial and host DNAs and biases against specific phages. In particular the CsCl density gradient centrifugation method, which is frequently used for VLP purification, was most efficient in removing host derived DNA, but also showed strong discrimination against specific phages and showed a lower reproducibility of quantitative results.

conclusionsBased on our data we recommend the use of methods (i) or (ii) for large scale studies when quantitative comparison of viral abundances across samples is required. The CsCl density gradient centrifugation method, while being excellently suited to achieve highly purified samples, in our opinion, should be used with caution when performing quantitative studies.

Indexed as

AnimalsBacteriophagesContig MappingDNA, ViralFecesGenetic TechniquesIntestinesMetagenomeMetagenomicsMiceMice, Inbred C57BLReproducibility of ResultsSequence Analysis, DNADNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID25608871
PMCPMC4308010

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.