ArticleMicrobiologyOpen2022
DNA extraction bias is more pronounced for microbial eukaryotes than for prokaryotes.
Article in MicrobiologyOpen, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- SARS-CoV-2 Infection disrupts lower respiratory tract microbiome function and interactions.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- The impact of DNA extraction on the quantification ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Identifying Eukaryotes and Factors Influencing Their Biogeography in Drinking Water Metagenomes.Environmental science & technology · 2023Article
- DNA extraction bias is more pronounced for microbial eukaryotes than for prokaryotes.MicrobiologyOpen · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
DNA extraction and preservation bias is a recurring topic in DNA sequencing-based microbial ecology. The different methodologies can lead to distinct outcomes, which has been demonstrated especially in studies investigating prokaryotic community composition. Eukaryotic microbes are ubiquitous, diverse, and increasingly a subject of investigation in addition to bacteria and archaea. However, little is known about how the choice of DNA preservation and extraction methodology impacts perceived eukaryotic community composition. In this study, we compared the effect of two DNA preservation methods and six DNA extraction methods on the community profiles of both eukaryotes and prokaryotes in phototrophic biofilms on seagrass (Zostera marina) leaves from the Baltic Sea. We found that, whereas both DNA preservation and extraction method caused significant bias in perceived community composition for both eukaryotes and prokaryotes, extraction bias was more pronounced for eukaryotes than for prokaryotes. In particular, soft-bodied and hard-shelled eukaryotes like nematodes and diatoms, respectively, were differentially abundant depending on the extraction method. We conclude that careful consideration of DNA preservation and extraction methodology is crucial to achieving representative community profiles of eukaryotes in marine biofilms and likely all other habitats containing diverse eukaryotic microbial communities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.