Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36314746›Full record

ArticleMicrobiologyOpen2022

Comparison of DNA purification methods for high-throughput sequencing of fungal communities from wine fermentation.

Antoine Gobert, Marie Sarah Evers, Christophe Morge, Céline Sparrow, Vincent Delafont

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MicrobiologyOpen, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Antoine GobertSAS Sofralab, Magenta, France.
Marie Sarah EversSAS Sofralab, Magenta, France.
Christophe MorgeSAS Sofralab, Magenta, France.
Céline SparrowSAS Sofralab, Magenta, France.
Vincent DelafontLaboratoire Ecologie et Biologie des Interactions, Equipe, Microorganismes, Hôtes, Environnements, Université de Poitiers, UMR CNRS 7267, Poitiers, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1111-2916

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High-throughput sequencing approaches, which target a taxonomically discriminant locus, allow for in-depth insight into microbial communities' compositions. Although microorganisms are historically investigated by cultivation on artificial culture media, this method presents strong limitations, since only a limited proportion of microorganisms can be grown in vitro. This pitfall appears even more limiting in enological and winemaking processes, during which a wide range of molds, yeasts, and bacteria are observed at the different stages of the fermentation course. Such an understanding of those dynamic communities and how they impact wine quality therefore stands as a major challenge for the future of enology. As of now, although high-throughput sequencing has already allowed for the investigation of fungal communities, there is no available comparative study focusing on the performance of microbial deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) extraction in enological matrixes. This study aims to provide a comparison of five selected extraction methods, assayed on both must and fermenting must, as well as on finished wine. These procedures were evaluated according to their extraction yields, the purity of their extracted DNA, and the robustness of downstream molecular analyses, including polymerase chain reaction and high-throughput sequencing of fungal communities. Altogether, two out of the five assessed microbial DNA extraction methods (DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit and E.Z.N.A.® Food DNA Kit) appeared suitable for robust evaluations of the microbial communities in wine samples. Consequently, this study provides robust tools for facilitated upcoming studies to further investigate microbial communities during winemaking using high-throughput sequencing.

Indexed as

MycobiomeWineDNADNA, FungalFermentationHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingDNADNA, FungalDNAfermentationfungal diversitymetagenomicwineyeast

Identifiers

PMID36314746
PMCPMC9593259

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.