Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33406075›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Assessment of two DNA extraction kits for profiling poultry respiratory microbiota from multiple sample types.

Michael E C Abundo, John M Ngunjiri, Kara J M Taylor, Hana Ji, Amir Ghorbani, Mahesh K C, Bonnie P Weber, Timothy J Johnson, Chang-Won Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Bacterial communities along parrot digestive and respiratory tracts: the effects of sample type, species and time.International microbiology : the official journal of the Spanish Society for Microbiology · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Rational Use of Danofloxacin for Treatment ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

9 authors.

Michael E C AbundoFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University, Wooster, Ohio, United States of America.
John M NgunjiriFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University, Wooster, Ohio, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2131-1698
Kara J M TaylorFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University, Wooster, Ohio, United States of America.
Hana JiFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University, Wooster, Ohio, United States of America.
Amir GhorbaniFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University, Wooster, Ohio, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8511-1727
Mahesh K CFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University, Wooster, Ohio, United States of America.
Bonnie P WeberDepartment of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States of America.
Timothy J JohnsonDepartment of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States of America.
Chang-Won LeeFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University, Wooster, Ohio, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Characterization of poultry microbiota is becoming increasingly important due to the growing need for microbiome-based interventions to improve poultry health and production performance. However, the lack of standardized protocols for sampling, sample processing, DNA extraction, sequencing, and bioinformatic analysis can hinder data comparison between studies. Here, we investigated how the DNA extraction process affects microbial community compositions and diversity metrics in different chicken respiratory sample types including choanal and tracheal swabs, nasal cavity and tracheal washes, and lower respiratory lavage. We did a side-by-side comparison of the performances of Qiagen DNeasy blood and tissue (BT) and ZymoBIOMICS DNA Miniprep (ZB) kits. In general, samples extracted with the BT kit yielded higher concentrations of total DNA while those extracted with the ZB kit contained higher numbers of bacterial 16S rRNA gene copies per unit volume. Therefore, the samples were normalized to equal amounts of 16S rRNA gene copies prior to sequencing. For each sample type, all predominant bacterial taxa detected in samples extracted with one kit were present in replicate samples extracted with the other kit and did not show significant differences at the class level. However, a few differentially abundant shared taxa were observed at family and genus levels. Furthermore, between-kit differences in alpha and beta diversity metrics at the amplicon sequence variant level were statistically indistinguishable. Therefore, both kits perform similarly in terms of 16S rRNA gene-based poultry microbiome analysis for the sample types analyzed in this study.

Indexed as

DNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalMicrobiotaReagent Kits, DiagnosticRNA, Ribosomal, 16SAnimalsChickensRespiratory SystemDNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalReagent Kits, DiagnosticRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID33406075
PMCPMC7787465

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.