ArticleiMetaOmics2025
The performance of different methods in characterizing soil live prokaryotic diversity and abundance is highly variable.
Article in iMetaOmics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The long-term persistence of extracellular DNA in soils is well-documented, yet its impacts on analyzing soil microbial abundance and diversity remain controversial. This primarily arises from our limited comprehension regarding the reliability of various methods for studying soil live microbiotas. In this study, we systematically compared and assessed commonly used methods for studying live soil microbial abundance and diversity, including alkaline buffer washing, propidium monoazide (PMA) treatment, DNase pre-digestion, and rRNA-based analysis, using soils collected from a wide range of locations across China. We found that the elimination of extracellular DNA substantially influenced the analysis of soil prokaryotic abundance, diversity, community profiles, and co-occurrence patterns, but not community assembly mechanisms. However, the effects varied considerably across different methods. DNase pre-digestion and PMA treatment led to significant decreases in prokaryotic abundance, while alkaline buffer washing and rRNA-based analysis had negligible effects. As for prokaryotic richness, DNase pre-digestion and rRNA-based analysis significantly decreased and increased it, respectively. Although 67.8% of amplicon sequence variants were shared, significant differences in their relative abundance were observed across various methods. While the removal of extracellular DNA simplified the co-occurrence network, it also enhanced its robustness. According to the assessment experiments, DNase pre-digestion showed the highest extracellular DNA removal efficiency and live prokaryotic characterizing accuracy. Concerns for other methods include low DNA removal efficiency, instability, and uncertainties in result explanation. This study suggests that soil live prokaryotic diversity and abundance characterized by different methods exhibit high variability, and DNase pre-digestion is recommended for characterizing soil live prokaryotic communities. These findings provide crucial information for optimizing soil microbiome research methodologies.
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.