ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2016
Transparent DNA/RNA Co-extraction Workflow Protocol Suitable for Inhibitor-Rich Environmental Samples That Focuses on Complete DNA Removal for Transcriptomic Analyses.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Distinct Denitrification Phenotypes in Closely Related Bacteria: Clues to Understanding Variations in Nitrite Accumulation Among Stutzerimonas Strains.Environmental microbiology · 2026Article
- Shared stream-lake patterns in diversity, rRNA-based activity and community assembly of bacteria and microeukaryotes under distinct hydrological regimes.FEMS microbiology ecology · 2026Article
- Residual eDNA in eRNA Extracts Skews eRNA-Based Biodiversity Assessment: Call for Optimised DNase Treatment.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- An effective DNA extraction protocol optimized for tropical swamp peat samples.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Optimising RNA extraction for paddy bulk soil samples for metatranscriptome sequencing.BMC research notes · 2025Article
- Evaluation of commercial RNA extraction kits for long-read metatranscriptomics in soil.Microbial genomics · 2024Article
- Determining how oxygen legacy affects trajectories of soil denitrifier community dynamics and NNature communications · 2024Article
- Assessment of microbial communities from cold mine environments and subsequent enrichment, isolation and characterization of putative antimony- or copper-metabolizing microorganisms.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Article
- Linking meta-omics to the kinetics of denitrification intermediates reveals pH-dependent causes of NThe ISME journal · 2022Article
- DNA Metabarcoding for the Characterization of Terrestrial Microbiota-Pitfalls and Solutions.Microorganisms · 2021Review
- Assessment of the direct quantitation of SARS-CoV-2 by droplet digital PCR.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Protective effects ofInternational journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2020Article
- Spiking a Silty-Sand Reference Soil with Bacterial DNA: Limits and Pitfalls in the Discrimination of Live and Dead Cells When Applying Ethidium Monoazide (EMA) Treatment.Current microbiology · 2019Article
- A Method for Targeted 16S Sequencing of Human Milk Samples.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2018Article
- Integrated DNA and RNA extraction using magnetic beads from viral pathogens causing acute respiratory infections.Scientific reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adequate comparisons of DNA and cDNA libraries from complex environments require methods for co-extraction of DNA and RNA due to the inherent heterogeneity of such samples, or risk bias caused by variations in lysis and extraction efficiencies. Still, there are few methods and kits allowing simultaneous extraction of DNA and RNA from the same sample, and the existing ones generally require optimization. The proprietary nature of kit components, however, makes modifications of individual steps in the manufacturer's recommended procedure difficult. Surprisingly, enzymatic treatments are often performed before purification procedures are complete, which we have identified here as a major problem when seeking efficient genomic DNA removal from RNA extracts. Here, we tested several DNA/RNA co-extraction commercial kits on inhibitor-rich soils, and compared them to a commonly used phenol-chloroform co-extraction method. Since none of the kits/methods co-extracted high-quality nucleic acid material, we optimized the extraction workflow by introducing small but important improvements. In particular, we illustrate the need for extensive purification prior to all enzymatic procedures, with special focus on the DNase digestion step in RNA extraction. These adjustments led to the removal of enzymatic inhibition in RNA extracts and made it possible to reduce genomic DNA to below detectable levels as determined by quantitative PCR. Notably, we confirmed that DNase digestion may not be uniform in replicate extraction reactions, thus the analysis of "representative samples" is insufficient. The modular nature of our workflow protocol allows optimization of individual steps. It also increases focus on additional purification procedures prior to enzymatic processes, in particular DNases, yielding genomic DNA-free RNA extracts suitable for metatranscriptomic analysis.
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.