ArticleMicrobiologyOpen2024
Evaluation of DNA Extraction Methods for Microbial Community Profiling in Deadwood Decomposition.
Article in MicrobiologyOpen, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Benchmarking Cost-Effective DNA Extraction Kits for Diverse Metagenomic Samples.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Repeated measures of decaying wood reveal the success and influence of fungal wood endophytes.mSystems · 2025Article
- Miniature rose alleviates inflammatory bowel disease in mice by modulating gut microbiota, inhibiting TLR4, enhancing tight junction proteins, and promoting metabolism.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As technologies advance alongside metabarcoding and metagenomic resources, particularly for larger fungal genomes, DNA extraction methods must be optimized to meet higher thresholds, especially from complex environmental substrates. This study focused on extracting fungal genomic compounds from woody substrates, a challenge due to the embedment of endophytic and saprotrophic fungi within wood cells, the physical recalcitrance of wood, the adsorption of nucleic acids to wood polymers, and the release of downstream inhibitors. Hypothesizing that cetyltrimethylammonium bromide would be the best option, we compared prominent methods by extracting and sequencing microbial DNA from sound and decayed birch (Betula papyrifera) and pine (Pinus resinosa). DNA quantities varied significantly depending on extraction methods and decay stage. The quality of DNA, in terms of purity and integrity, significantly impacted whether the samples could be amplified and sequenced. However, amplicon sequencing of bacterial and fungal communities revealed no significant extraction bias. This, along with the sequencing effectiveness and cost/time efficiency, indicates that Qiagen is the gold standard for woody substrates. This study increases confidence in published amplicon data sets regardless of the extraction methods, provides a cost-benefit table for making protocol decisions, and offers guidance on fungal DNA extractions from complex organic substrates (sound and decayed wood) that would best suit future metagenomic efforts.
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.