Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29667371›Full record

ArticleMicrobiologyOpen2019

Biases from different DNA extraction methods in intestine microbiome research based on 16S rDNA sequencing: a case in the koi carp, Cyprinus carpio var. Koi.

Zhuoran Han, Jingfeng Sun, Aijun Lv, Anli Wang

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in MicrobiologyOpen, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Cloning of DNA oligo pools forSTAR protocols · 2022
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zhuoran HanKey Laboratory of Ecology and Environment Science of Higher Education Institutes, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory for Healthy and Safe Aquaculture, College of Life Science, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China.
Jingfeng SunTianjin Key Lab of Aqua-ecology and Aquaculture, Fisheries College, Tianjin Agricultural University, Tianjin, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8070-5304
Aijun LvTianjin Key Lab of Aqua-ecology and Aquaculture, Fisheries College, Tianjin Agricultural University, Tianjin, China.
Anli WangKey Laboratory of Ecology and Environment Science of Higher Education Institutes, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory for Healthy and Safe Aquaculture, College of Life Science, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China.
Tianjin Agricultural University · CNSouth China Normal University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study examined the technical bias associated with different DNA extraction methods used in microbiome research. Three methods were used to extract genomic DNA from the same intestinal microbiota sample that was taken from the koi carp Cyprinus carpio var. koi, after which their microbial diversity and community structure were investigated on the basis of a 16S rDNA high-throughput sequencing analysis. Biased results were observed in relation to the number of reads, alpha diversity indexes and taxonomic composition among the three DNA extraction protocols. A total of 1,381 OTUs from the intestinal bacteria were obtained, with 852, 759, and 698 OTUs acquired, using the Lysozyme and Ultrasonic Lysis method, Zirmil-beating Cell Disruption method, and a QIAamp Fast DNA Stool Mini Kit, respectively. Additionally, 336 OTUs were commonly acquired, using the three methods. The results showed that the alpha diversity indexes (Rarefaction, Shannon, and Chao1) of the community that were determined using the Lysozyme and Ultrasonic Lysis method were higher than those obtained with the Zirmil-beating Cell Disruption method, while the Zirmil method results were higher than those measured, using the QIAamp Fast DNA Stool Mini Kit. Moreover, all the major phyla (ratio>1%) could be identified with all three DNA extraction methods, but the phyla present at a lower abundance (ratio <1%) could not. Similar findings were observed at the genus level. Taken together, these findings indicated that the bias observed in the results about the community structure occurred primarily in OTUs with a lower abundance. The results of this study demonstrate that possible bias exists in community analyses, and researchers should therefore be conservative when drawing conclusions about community structures based on the currently available DNA extraction methods.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeAnimalsCarpsCluster AnalysisDNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalMetagenomicsPhylogenyRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSequence Analysis, DNADNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalRNA, Ribosomal, 16S16S ribosomal DNAhigh-throughput sequencingintestinal microfloraKoi carp

Identifiers

PMID29667371
PMCPMC6341036
OpenAlexW2803042194

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.