Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34128697›Full record

ArticlemSystems2021

DNA Extraction and Host Depletion Methods Significantly Impact and Potentially Bias Bacterial Detection in a Biological Fluid.

Erika Ganda, Kristen L Beck, Niina Haiminen, Justin D Silverman, Ban Kawas, Brittany D Cronk, Renee R Anderson, Laura B Goodman, Martin Wiedmann

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in mSystems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Microbiome of Bovine Milk and Factors Influencing Its Composition.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Analysis of metagenomic data.Nature reviews. Methods primers · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Erika GandaDepartment of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.
Kristen L BeckConsortium for Sequencing the Food Supply Chain, San Jose, California, USA.
Niina HaiminenConsortium for Sequencing the Food Supply Chain, San Jose, California, USA.
Justin D SilvermanCollege of Information Sciences and Technology, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA.
Ban KawasConsortium for Sequencing the Food Supply Chain, San Jose, California, USA.
Brittany D CronkDepartment of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.
Renee R AndersonDepartment of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.
Laura B GoodmanDepartment of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.
Martin WiedmannDepartment of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.
Cornell University · USIBM Research - Almaden · USIBM Research - Thomas J. Watson Research Center · USPennsylvania State University · US

Funding

New York State Dairy Promotion Advisory Board OSP 88975
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Untargeted sequencing of nucleic acids present in food can inform the detection of food safety and origin, as well as product tampering and mislabeling issues. The application of such technologies to food analysis may reveal valuable insights that are simply unobtainable by targeted testing, leading to the efforts of applying such technologies in the food industry. However, before these approaches can be applied, it is imperative to verify that the most appropriate methods are used at every step of the process: gathering of primary material, laboratory methods, data analysis, and interpretation. The focus of this study is on gathering the primary material, in this case, DNA. We used bovine milk as a model to (i) evaluate commercially available kits for their ability to extract nucleic acids from inoculated bovine milk, (ii) evaluate host DNA depletion methods for use with milk, and (iii) develop and evaluate a selective lysis-propidium monoazide (PMA)-based protocol for host DNA depletion in milk. Our results suggest that magnetically based nucleic acid extraction methods are best for nucleic acid isolation of bovine milk. Removal of host DNA remains a challenge for untargeted sequencing of milk, highlighting the finding that the individual matrix characteristics should always be considered in food testing. Some reported methods introduce bias against specific types of microbes, which may be particularly problematic in food safety, where the detection of Gram-negative pathogens and hygiene indicators is essential. Continuous efforts are needed to develop and validate new approaches for untargeted metagenomics in samples with large amounts of DNA from a single host.

Indexed as

biasesdairyDNAfood microbiomehost depletionlow biomassmilkpropidium monoazideRNAshotgun metagenomics

Identifiers

PMID34128697
PMCPMC8574158
OpenAlexW3166722205

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.