Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37675430›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2023

16S rRNA gene-based microbiota profiles from diverse avian faeces are largely independent of DNA preservation and extraction method.

Johnson Edwards, Carmen Hoffbeck, Annie G West, An Pas, Michael W Taylor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Johnson EdwardsSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Carmen HoffbeckSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Annie G WestSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
An PasNew Zealand Centre for Conservation Medicine, Auckland Zoo, Auckland, New Zealand.
Michael W TaylorSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The avian gut microbiota has been the subject of considerable recent attention, with potential implications for diverse fields such as the poultry industry, microbial ecology, and conservation. Faecal microbiotas are frequently used as a non-invasive proxy for the gut microbiota, however the extraction of high-quality microbial DNA from avian faeces has often proven challenging. Here we aimed to evaluate the performance of two DNA preservation methods (95% ethanol and RNAlater) and five extraction approaches (IndiSpin Pathogen Kit, QIAamp PowerFecal Pro DNA Kit, MicroGEM PrepGEM Bacteria Kit, ZymoBIOMICS DNA Miniprep Kit, and an in-house phase separation-based method) for studying the avian gut microbiota. Systematic testing of the efficacy of these approaches on faecal samples from an initial three avian species (chicken, ostrich, and the flightless parrot kākāpō) revealed substantial differences in the quality, quantity and integrity of extracted DNA, but negligible influence of applied method on 16S rRNA gene-based microbiota profiles. Subsequent testing with a selected combination of preservation and extraction method on 10 further phylogenetically and ecologically diverse avian species reiterated the efficacy of the chosen approach, with bacterial community structure clustering strongly by technical replicates for a given avian species. Our finding that marked differences in extraction efficacy do not appear to influence 16S rRNA gene-based bacterial community profiles provides an important foundation for ongoing research on the avian gut microbiota.

Indexed as

avianbird microbiotaDNA extractionDNA preservationnucleic acids

Identifiers

PMID37675430
PMCPMC10477782

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.