Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35668514›Full record

ArticleAnimal microbiome2022

Low-cost sample preservation methods for high-throughput processing of rumen microbiomes.

Juliana C C Budel, Melanie K Hess, Timothy P Bilton, Hannah Henry, Ken G Dodds, Peter H Janssen, John C McEwan, Suzanne J Rowe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal microbiome, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Juliana C C Budel *Invermay Agricultural Centre, AgResearch Ltd., Private Bag 50034, Mosgiel, 9053, New Zealand.
Melanie K Hess *Invermay Agricultural Centre, AgResearch Ltd., Private Bag 50034, Mosgiel, 9053, New Zealand.
Timothy P BiltonInvermay Agricultural Centre, AgResearch Ltd., Private Bag 50034, Mosgiel, 9053, New Zealand. timothy.bilton@agresearch.co.nz.
Hannah HenryInvermay Agricultural Centre, AgResearch Ltd., Private Bag 50034, Mosgiel, 9053, New Zealand.
Ken G DoddsInvermay Agricultural Centre, AgResearch Ltd., Private Bag 50034, Mosgiel, 9053, New Zealand.
Peter H JanssenGrasslands Research Centre, AgResearch Ltd., Private Bag 11008, Palmerston North, 4410, New Zealand.
John C McEwan *Invermay Agricultural Centre, AgResearch Ltd., Private Bag 50034, Mosgiel, 9053, New Zealand.
Suzanne J Rowe *Invermay Agricultural Centre, AgResearch Ltd., Private Bag 50034, Mosgiel, 9053, New Zealand.
AgResearch · NZInstituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Pará · BR

Funding

Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES) PhD scholarshipGlobal Research Alliance SOW14-AGR-GPLER-SP5-SRMinistry of Business, Innovation and Employment C10X1807New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre MET5.1Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium MET5.1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of rumen microbial community (RMC) profiles to predict methane emissions has driven interest in ruminal DNA preservation and extraction protocols that can be processed cheaply while also maintaining or improving DNA quality for RMC profiling. Our standard approach for preserving rumen samples, as defined in the Global Rumen Census (GRC), requires time-consuming pre-processing steps of freeze drying and grinding prior to international transportation and DNA extraction. This impedes researchers unable to access sufficient funding or infrastructure. To circumvent these pre-processing steps, we investigated three methods of preserving rumen samples for subsequent DNA extraction, based on existing lysis buffers Tris-NaCl-EDTA-SDS (TNx2) and guanidine hydrochloride (GHx2), or 100% ethanol.

resultsRumen samples were collected via stomach intubation from 151 sheep at two time-points 2 weeks apart. Each sample was separated into four subsamples and preserved using the three preservation methods and the GRC method (n = 4 × 302). DNA was extracted and sequenced using Restriction Enzyme-Reduced Representation Sequencing to generate RMC profiles. Differences in DNA yield, quality and integrity, and sequencing metrics were observed across the methods (p < 0.0001). Ethanol exhibited poorer quality DNA (A260/A230 < 2) and more failed samples compared to the other methods. Samples preserved using the GRC method had smaller relative abundances in gram-negative genera Anaerovibrio, Bacteroides, Prevotella, Selenomonas, and Succiniclasticum, but larger relative abundances in the majority of 56 additional genera compared to TNx2 and GHx2. However, log

conclusionsThe two modified lysis buffers solutions (TNx2 and GHx2) proposed in this study were shown to be viable alternatives to the GRC method for RMC profiling in sheep. Use of these preservative solutions reduces cost and improves throughput associated with processing and sequencing ruminal samples. This development could significantly advance implementation of RMC profiles as a tool for breeding ruminant livestock.

Indexed as

Genotyping-by-sequencingPstIRE-RRSRumen microbial profilesRumen microbiologySuperorganism

Identifiers

PMID35668514
PMCPMC9171989
OpenAlexW4281685295

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.