ArticleBMC research notes2016
The effect of DNA extraction methodology on gut microbiota research applications.
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.
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
45 citing papers in PubMed.
- Associations of indoor bacterial, metabolomic, and other chemical exposures with allergic rhinitis in school-aged children.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- Hydration as a governing state variable in the mechanical and electrical response of decellularized extracellular matrix materials.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Microbial DNA extraction method for avian feces and preen oil from diverse species.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Gut metabolome and microbiota signatures predict response to treatment with exclusive enteral nutrition in a prospective study in children with active Crohn's disease.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2024Article
- Improved DNA Extraction and Amplification Strategy for 16S rRNA Gene Amplicon-Based Microbiome Studies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Choice of DNA extraction method affects stool microbiome recovery and subsequent phenotypic association analyses.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Gut microbial ecology and exposome of a healthy Pakistani cohort.Gut pathogens · 2024Article
- A scalable corneal xenograft platform: simultaneous opportunities for tissue engineering and circular economic sustainability by repurposing slaughterhouse waste.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Best practice for wildlife gut microbiome research: A comprehensive review of methodology for 16S rRNA gene investigations.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Review
- The Effects of DNA Extraction Kits and Primers on Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic Microbial Community in Freshwater Sediments.Microorganisms · 2022Article
- Increasing transparency and reproducibility in stroke-microbiota research: A toolbox for microbiota analysis.iScience · 2022Article
- Article
- Considerations and best practices in animal science 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing microbiome studies.Journal of animal science · 2022Review
- The Microbial Quality of Commercial Chopped Romaine Lettuce Before and After the "Use By" Date.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Standards for Collection, Preservation, and Transportation of Fecal Samples in TCM Clinical Trials.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Article
- Variation in Rumen Bacteria of Lacaune Dairy Ewes From One Week to the Next.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Concatenation of paired-end reads improves taxonomic classification of amplicons for profiling microbial communities.BMC bioinformatics · 2021Article
- Association of Skin Microbiome with the Onset and Recurrence of Pressure Injury in Bedridden Elderly People.Microorganisms · 2021Review
- Refinement of 16S rRNA gene analysis for low biomass biospecimens.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
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
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.