Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27803690›Full record

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.

Natalie Y N Lim, Constance A Roco, Åsa Frostegård

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Applied and environmental microbiology · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Protective effects ofInternational journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. A Method for Targeted 16S Sequencing of Human Milk Samples.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2018
    Article
  16. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Natalie Y N LimDepartment of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Aas Norway.
Constance A RocoDepartment of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, AasNorway; Department of Microbiology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NYUSA.
Åsa FrostegårdDepartment of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Aas Norway.
Norwegian University of Life Sciences · NOCornell University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

environmental sampleenzyme inhibitiongenomic DNA removalpurificationRNA extraction

Identifiers

PMID27803690
PMCPMC5067521
OpenAlexW2536120808

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.