Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30973938›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the impact of the G2 enhancer, bead sizes and lysing tubes on the bacterial community composition during DNA extraction from recalcitrant soil core samples based on community sequencing and qPCR.

Alex Gobbi, Rui G Santini, Elisa Filippi, Lea Ellegaard-Jensen, Carsten S Jacobsen, Lars H Hansen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Laboratory and In-Field Metagenomics for Environmental Monitoring.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Short impact on soil microbiome of aFrontiers in plant science · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Effects of trichothecene production byFrontiers in plant science · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Characterization of the Wood Mycobiome ofFrontiers in plant science · 2019
    Article
  17. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alex GobbiDepartment of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark.
Rui G SantiniNatural History Museum of Denmark, Centre for GeoGenetics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-8891-4557
Elisa FilippiDepartment of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark.
Lea Ellegaard-JensenDepartment of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark.
Carsten S JacobsenDepartment of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark.
Lars H HansenDepartment of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark.
Aarhus University · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Soil DNA extraction encounters numerous challenges that can affect both yield and purity of the recovered DNA. Clay particles lead to reduced DNA extraction efficiency, and PCR inhibitors from the soil matrix can negatively affect downstream analyses when applying DNA sequencing. Further, these effects impede molecular analysis of bacterial community compositions in lower biomass samples, as often observed in deeper soil layers. Many studies avoid these complications by using indirect DNA extraction with prior separation of the cells from the matrix, but such methods introduce other biases that influence the resulting microbial community composition. To address these issues, a direct DNA extraction method was applied in combination with the use of a commercial product, the G2 DNA/RNA Enhancer, marketed as being capable of improving the amount of DNA recovered after the lysis step. The results showed that application of G2 increased DNA yields from the studied clayey soils from layers from 1.00 to 2.20 m. Importantly, the use of G2 did not introduce bias, as it did not result in any significant differences in the biodiversity of the bacterial community measured in terms of alpha and beta diversity and taxonomical composition. Finally, this study considered a set of customised lysing tubes for evaluating possible influences on the DNA yield. Tubes customization included different bead sizes and amounts, along with lysing tubes coming from two suppliers. Results showed that the lysing tubes with mixed beads allowed greater DNA recovery compared to the use of either 0.1 or 1.4 mm beads, irrespective of the tube supplier. These outcomes may help to improve commercial products in DNA/RNA extraction kits, besides raising awareness about the optimal choice of additives, offering opportunities for acquiring a better understanding of topics such as vertical microbial characterisation and environmental DNA recovery in low biomass samples.

Indexed as

DNA, BacterialEnhancer Elements, GeneticReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionSoil MicrobiologyMicrobial ConsortiaDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID30973938
PMCPMC6459482
OpenAlexW2952774584

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.