ArticlePloS one2025
DNA extraction protocols for animal fecal material on blood spot cards.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCollecting fecal samples using dry preservatives is an attractive option in large epidemiological studies as they are easy to use, cheap and independent of cold chain logistics. Here, we test four DNA extraction methods with the aim of identifying an efficient procedure to extract high-quality DNA from fecal material of canine, sheep, equine, bovine, and pig collected on dry blood spot cards, with the goal of generating good quality shotgun metagenomics datasets. Further, the suitability of Illumina shotgun metagenomic sequencing at 20 million paired-end (PE) read depth per sample was assessed on its ability to successfully characterize the taxonomic and functional aspects of the resulting fecal microbiome.
methodsDNA was extracted from pig feces and mock communities collected on blood spot cards using four DNA extraction methods; two different methods of the QIAsymphony® PowerFecal® Pro DNA Kit, the ZymoBIOMICS™ DNA Miniprep Kit, and the MagNA Pure 96 DNA and Viral NA Small Volume Kit. Possible extraction bias was controlled by amplicon sequencing of mock communities. Fecal samples from canine, sheep, equine, bovine, and pig were thereafter subjected to the best performing DNA extraction method and shotgun metagenomic sequencing to determine sequencing efforts for functional and taxonomic analysis.
resultsThe four DNA extraction methods demonstrated similar community composition in the sequenced bacterial mock community. The QIAsymphony® PowerFecal® Pro DNA Kit was identified as the DNA extraction method of choice, and the resulting DNA was subjected to shotgun metagenomic sequencing with 20million PE reads. We found that higher number of reads increased the richness of observed genera between 100,000 and 5 million reads, after which higher sequencing effort did not increase the richness of the metagenomes. As for functional analysis, the number of low abundance functions in the metagenomes of the animals' feces increased with sequencing depth above 20 million PE reads.
conclusionOur experiments identified several methods suitable for extracting DNA from feces collected on blood spot cards. The QIAGEN's Blood and Tissue kit on the QiaSymphony platform fulfilled the criteria of high yield, quality, and unbiased DNA, while maintaining high throughput for shotgun metagenomic sequencing. A sequencing depth of 20 million PE reads proved adequate for taxonomic estimations and identifying common functional pathways. Detecting rarer traits, however, requires more sequencing effort.
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.