Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34065976›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2021

Choice of Commercial DNA Extraction Method Does Not Affect 16S Sequencing Outcomes in Cloacal Swabs.

Emily Van Syoc, Natália Carrillo Gaeta, Erika Ganda

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 57% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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.

Emily Van SyocIntegrative & Biomedical Physiology and Clinical & Translational Sciences Dual-Title Ph.D. Program, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9984-534X
Natália Carrillo GaetaDepartment of Internal Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo 05508-270, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-6397-605X
Erika GandaDepartment of Animal Science, College of Agricultural Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16801, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8735-0753
Pennsylvania State University · USUniversidade de São Paulo · BR

Funding

USDA - Hatch #PEN04752 Accession #1023328
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the applications of microbiome science in agriculture expand, laboratory methods should be constantly evaluated to ensure optimization and reliability of downstream results. Most animal microbiome research uses fecal samples or rectal swabs for profiling the gut bacterial community; however, in birds, this is difficult given the unique anatomy of the cloaca where the fecal, urinary, and reproductive tracts converge into one orifice. Therefore, avian gut microbiomes are usually sampled from cloacal swabs, creating a need to evaluate sample preparation methods to optimize 16S sequencing. We compared four different DNA extraction methods from two commercially available kits on cloacal swabs from 10 adult commercial laying hens and included mock communities and negative controls, which were then subjected to 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing. Extracted DNA yield and quality, diversity analyses, and contaminants were assessed. Differences in DNA quality and quantity were observed, and all methods needed further purification for optimal sequencing, suggesting contaminants due to cloacal contents, method reagents, and/or environmental factors. However, no differences were observed in alpha or beta diversity between methods. Importantly, multiple bacterial contaminants were detected in each mock community and negative control, indicating the prevalence of laboratory and handling contamination as well as method-specific reagent contamination. We found that although the extraction methods resulted in different extraction quality and yield, overall sequencing results were not affected, and we did not identify any method that would be an inappropriate choice in extracting DNA from cloacal swabs for 16S rRNA sequencing. Overall, our results highlight the need for careful consideration of positive and negative controls in addition to DNA isolation method and lend guidance to future microbiome research in poultry.

Indexed as

animal microbiomecloacal microbiomemethod evaluationpoultry microbiome

Identifiers

PMID34065976
PMCPMC8151189
OpenAlexW3162136300

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.