ArticlePhenomics (Cham, Switzerland)2025
Impact of DNA Extraction Methods on Gut Microbiome Profiles: A Comparative Metagenomic Study.
Article in Phenomics (Cham, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unique Oral Microbiota Signatures and Neurocognitive Function in Adolescents with and without Perinatally Acquired HIV.Research square · 2026Article
- Gut Dysbiosis in Selected Gynecological Diseases Associated with Female Infertility: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- A gut microbiome-lipid axis in early pregnancy is associated with metabolic dysregulation and diabetes risk.iMeta · 2026Article
- DNA and RNA metabarcoding reveal shared dominant seed-borne fungi.Environmental microbiome · 2026Article
- Quercetin alleviates CClBiochemistry and biophysics reports · 2026Article
- Fecal virome of paraguayan hairy dwarf porcupine (Coendou spinosus, Cuvier, 1823) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2026Article
- Quantitative metagenomics using a portable protocol.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026Article
- Lifestyle associates with unique resistome and microbiome signatures in children.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- Gut Microbiota and Nutritional Profiles of Colon Cancer Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy: A Longitudinal Pilot Study.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Standardized and batch effect-independent technologies enable global collaboration in microbiome research.The ISME journal · 2026Article
- Characteristics of healthy sinonasal microbiome - single-centre study in the Czech Republic.Journal of applied biomedicine · 2025Article
- Impact of DNA extraction techniques and sequencing approaches on microbial community profiling accuracy.Frontiers in microbiomes · 2025Article
- Effects of biopolymers, cork, andFrontiers in microbiomes · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In gut microbial research, DNA extraction remarkably influences study outcomes and biological interpretations. Rapid advancements in the research scale and technological upgrades necessitate evaluating new methods to ensure reliability and precision in microbial community profiling. We systematically evaluated the performance of eight recent and commonly used extraction methods using a microbial mock community (MMC) and fecal samples from two healthy volunteers, incorporating bacterial, archaeal, and fungal constituents. Performance metrics included nucleic acid assessment, microbial profile assessment, and scalability for large-scale studies, leveraging shotgun metagenomics for in-depth analysis. Despite variations in DNA quantity and quality, all methods yielded sufficient DNA for shotgun metagenomic sequencing. In the MMC microbial profile assessment, the QIAamp PowerFecal pro Kit (PF) and DNeasy PowerSoil HTP kit (PS) methods exhibited higher similarity with the theoretical composition and lower variability across technical replicates compared to other methods. For fecal samples, the extraction method accounted for 21.4% of the overall microbiome variation and significantly affected the abundances of 32% of detected microbial species. Methods using mechanical lysis with small beads, such as PF and PS, demonstrated better efficiency, indicated by increased microbial diversity in extracting DNA from Gram-positive bacteria. Furthermore, the PF and PS methods are notably simple to execute and automation-friendly, though relatively costly. Our study underscores the importance of maintaining consistency in DNA extraction methods for reliable comparative metagenomic analyses. We recommend PF and PS methods as optimal for expansive gut metagenomic research, emphasizing the critical role of mechanical lysis in DNA extraction. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43657-025-00232-x.
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.