Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27456340›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2016

The effect of DNA extraction methodology on gut microbiota research applications.

Konstantinos Gerasimidis, Martin Bertz, Christopher Quince, Katja Brunner, Alanna Bruce, Emilie Combet, Szymon Calus, Nick Loman, Umer Zeeshan Ijaz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

9 authors.

Konstantinos GerasimidisHuman Nutrition, School of Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Martin BertzHuman Nutrition, School of Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Christopher QuinceWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK.
Katja BrunnerHuman Nutrition, School of Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Alanna BruceHuman Nutrition, School of Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Emilie CombetHuman Nutrition, School of Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Szymon CalusSchool of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Oakfield Avenue, Glasgow, G12 8LT, UK.
Nick LomanInstitute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Umer Zeeshan IjazSchool of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Oakfield Avenue, Glasgow, G12 8LT, UK. Umer.Ijaz@glasgow.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/L015080/1Medical Research Council MR/M50161X/1Medical Research Council MR/M501621/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe effect that traditional and modern DNA extraction methods have on applications to study the role of gut microbiota in health and disease is a topic of current interest. Genomic DNA was extracted from three faecal samples and one probiotic capsule using three popular methods; chaotropic (CHAO) method, phenol/chloroform (PHEC) extraction, proprietary kit (QIAG). The performance of each of these methods on DNA yield and quality, microbiota composition using quantitative PCR, deep sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene, and sequencing analysis pipeline was evaluated.

resultsThe CHAO yielded the highest and the QIAG kit the lowest amount of double-stranded DNA, but the purity of isolated nucleic acids was better for the latter method. The CHAO method yielded a higher concentration of bacterial taxa per mass (g) of faeces. Sequencing coverage was higher in CHAO method but a higher proportion of the initial sequencing reads were retained for assignments to operational taxonomic unit (OTU) in the QIAG kit compared to the other methods. The QIAG kit appeared to have longer trimmed reads and shorter regions of worse quality than the other two methods. A distinct separation of α-diversity indices between different DNA extraction methods was not observed. When compositional dissimilarities between samples were explored, a strong separation was observed according to sample type. The effect of the extraction method was either marginal (Bray-Curtis distance) or none (unweighted Unifrac distance). Taxon membership and abundance in each sample was independent of the DNA extraction method used.

conclusionsWe have benchmarked several DNA extraction methods commonly used in gut microbiota research and their differences depended on the downstream applications intended for use. Caution should be paid when the intention is to pool and analyse samples or data from studies which have used different DNA extraction methods.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingChloroformDNADNA, BacterialDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicFecesGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansLiquid Phase MicroextractionPhenolReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionRNA, Ribosomal, 16SChloroformDNADNA, BacterialPhenolRNA, Ribosomal, 16S16S rRNA geneBenchmarkingDiversityDNA extractionMetagenomicsPCR

Identifiers

PMID27456340
PMCPMC4960752

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.