ArticleMicrobial genomics2026
Benchmarking DNA extraction protocols across use cases for culture-independent Nanopore metagenomics.
Article in Microbial genomics, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) sequencing offers several advantages for metagenomics, including long reads, rapid turnaround, low upfront cost, scalability and portability. However, for ONT metagenomics, DNA yield, quality and integrity are important considerations when selecting an extraction method. Many metagenomic extraction methods use harsh lysis conditions to extract a wide range of species and provide an accurate community composition, but these conditions can compromise DNA fragment length. Therefore, extraction methods for ONT metagenomics must balance DNA shearing and recovery with representative community lysis. We systematically evaluated DNA extraction methods for ONT metagenomic sequencing using a use case-oriented framework. Among nearly 50 extraction methods screened, 7 were selected for detailed comparison based on suitability for metagenomics, variation in methodology, availability, cost and processing time: Norgen BioTek Corp's Stool DNA Isolation (NG), Zymo Research's ZymoBIOMICS Quick-DNA HMW MagBead (ZMG), Qiagen's DNeasy Blood and Tissue (QBT), Macherey-Nagel's NucleoMag DNA Microbiome (MN), Zymo Research's ZymoBIOMICS DNA Mini Prep (ZMI), Qiagen's DNeasy PowerSoil/QIAamp PowerFecal Pro (PS) and Qiagen's QIAamp Fast DNA Stool Mini (QIA). Methods were tested using Zymo Research's ZymoBIOMICS Microbial Community Standard (MCS), a matrix-free mock community with known composition. DNA extracts were sequenced on an ONT PromethION using the Rapid Barcoding Kit, except QIA due to insufficient DNA yield. Metrics for the method, DNA extracts, sequencing and genomes were evaluated, revealing trade-offs between methods. The two magnetic bead methods, MN and ZMG, produced the highest mean read length N50 values (13.9 and 16.5 kb, respectively) but showed apparent community compositions skewed towards Gram-negative bacteria. In contrast, ZMI and PS maintained a community composition close to expected, with reduced mean read length N50 values (4.5 vs. 7.5 kb). Performance across various metrics is presented in the context of the following use cases: maximizing genome coverage and assembly completeness, preserving composition accuracy, targeting specific species and limiting required resources (equipment, time or budget). The metrics and use case considerations presented offer practical guidance for informed selection of DNA extraction methods for ONT metagenomics. For accurate community composition, ZMI or PS are recommended, while PS and ZMG perform best at maximizing genome coverage and assembly completeness. NG and QBT may be the most economical options, though performance trade-offs were observed. Finally, PS may be the preferred method for time-sensitive diagnostic or field applications.
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.