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.
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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Uncovering transcriptional processes in microbial communities adapted to differing saline conditions in salt-weathered historic buildings.Microbiome · 2026Article
- Isolation of highly efficient potassium solubilizing bacteria and their effects on nutrient acquisition and growth promotion in tobacco seedlings.BMC plant biology · 2025Article
- Laboratory and In-Field Metagenomics for Environmental Monitoring.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Physicochemical Properties and Microbiome of Vineyard Soils from DOP Ribeiro (NW Spain) Are Influenced by Agricultural Management.Microorganisms · 2024Article
- Enrichment of putative plant growth promoting microorganisms in biodynamic compared with organic agriculture soils.ISME communications · 2024Article
- Short impact on soil microbiome of aFrontiers in plant science · 2024Article
- Pruning Wound Protection Products Induce Alterations in the Wood Mycobiome Profile of Grapevines.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Grinding Beads Influence Microbial DNA Extraction from Organic-Rich Sub-Seafloor Sediment.Microorganisms · 2022Article
- Interactions of the Fungal Community in the Complex Patho-System of Esca, a Grapevine Trunk Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- A global microbiome survey of vineyard soils highlights the microbial dimension of viticultural terroirs.Communications biology · 2022Article
- Effects of trichothecene production byFrontiers in plant science · 2022Article
- The Requirement of Genetic Diagnostic Technologies for Environmental Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Seasonal epiphytic microbial dynamics on grapevine leaves under biocontrol and copper fungicide treatments.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Article
- Under the Christmas Tree: Belowground Bacterial Associations WithFrontiers in microbiology · 2020Article
- Characterization of the Wood Mycobiome ofFrontiers in plant science · 2019Article
- Fungicides and the Grapevine Wood Mycobiome: A Case Study on Tracheomycotic AscomyceteFrontiers in plant science · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.