Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36314757›Full record

ArticleMicrobiologyOpen2022

DNA extraction bias is more pronounced for microbial eukaryotes than for prokaryotes.

Anne Brauer, Mia M Bengtsson

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  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

2 authors.

Anne BrauerInstitute of Microbiology, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2373-4766
Mia M BengtssonInstitute of Microbiology, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2115-9139

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

EukaryotaMicrobiotaArchaeaBacteriaDNADNA18S rRNAbiofilmDNA extraction biasDNA preservationmicrobial communitiesseagrass microbiome

Identifiers

PMID36314757
PMCPMC9524606

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.