-
Something wrong with this record ?
Stool sampling and DNA isolation kits affect DNA quality and bacterial composition following 16S rRNA gene sequencing using MiSeq Illumina platform
P. Videnska, K. Smerkova, B. Zwinsova, V. Popovici, L. Micenkova, K. Sedlar, E. Budinska,
Language English Country Great Britain
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
NLK
Directory of Open Access Journals
from 2011
Free Medical Journals
from 2011
PubMed Central
from 2011
Europe PubMed Central
from 2011
ProQuest Central
from 2011-01-01 to 2019-12-31
Open Access Digital Library
from 2011-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 2011-01-01
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
from 2011-01-01 to 2019-12-31
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
from 2011
Springer Nature OA/Free Journals
from 2011-12-01
Springer Nature - nature.com Journals - Fully Open Access
from 2011-12-01
- MeSH
- DNA, Bacterial genetics MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Feces microbiology MeSH
- Phylogeny MeSH
- Gram-Negative Bacteria classification genetics isolation & purification MeSH
- Gram-Positive Bacteria classification genetics isolation & purification MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Young Adult MeSH
- Reagent Kits, Diagnostic MeSH
- Reproducibility of Results MeSH
- RNA, Ribosomal, 16S genetics MeSH
- Sequence Analysis, DNA MeSH
- High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing methods MeSH
- Healthy Volunteers MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Young Adult MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
Many studies correlate changes in human gut microbiome with the onset of various diseases, mostly by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Setting up the optimal sampling and DNA isolation procedures is crucial for robustness and reproducibility of the results. We performed a systematic comparison of several sampling and DNA isolation kits, quantified their effect on bacterial gDNA quality and the bacterial composition estimates at all taxonomic levels. Sixteen volunteers tested three sampling kits. All samples were consequently processed by two DNA isolation kits. We found that the choice of both stool sampling and DNA isolation kits have an effect on bacterial composition with respect to Gram-positivity, however the isolation kit had a stronger effect than the sampling kit. The proportion of bacteria affected by isolation and sampling kits was larger at higher taxa levels compared to lower taxa levels. The PowerLyzer PowerSoil DNA Isolation Kit outperformed the QIAamp DNA Stool Mini Kit mainly due to better lysis of Gram-positive bacteria while keeping the values of all the other assessed parameters within a reasonable range. The presented effects need to be taken into account when comparing results across multiple studies or computing ratios between Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria.
Department of Biomedical Engineering Brno University of Technology Technicka 12 Brno Czech Republic
RECETOX Faculty of Science Masaryk University Kamenice 5 625 00 Brno Czech Republic
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc20028812
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20210114155202.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 210105s2019 xxk f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1038/s41598-019-49520-3 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)31554833
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxk
- 100 1_
- $a Videnska, Petra $u RECETOX, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, 625 00, Brno, Czech Republic.
- 245 10
- $a Stool sampling and DNA isolation kits affect DNA quality and bacterial composition following 16S rRNA gene sequencing using MiSeq Illumina platform / $c P. Videnska, K. Smerkova, B. Zwinsova, V. Popovici, L. Micenkova, K. Sedlar, E. Budinska,
- 520 9_
- $a Many studies correlate changes in human gut microbiome with the onset of various diseases, mostly by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Setting up the optimal sampling and DNA isolation procedures is crucial for robustness and reproducibility of the results. We performed a systematic comparison of several sampling and DNA isolation kits, quantified their effect on bacterial gDNA quality and the bacterial composition estimates at all taxonomic levels. Sixteen volunteers tested three sampling kits. All samples were consequently processed by two DNA isolation kits. We found that the choice of both stool sampling and DNA isolation kits have an effect on bacterial composition with respect to Gram-positivity, however the isolation kit had a stronger effect than the sampling kit. The proportion of bacteria affected by isolation and sampling kits was larger at higher taxa levels compared to lower taxa levels. The PowerLyzer PowerSoil DNA Isolation Kit outperformed the QIAamp DNA Stool Mini Kit mainly due to better lysis of Gram-positive bacteria while keeping the values of all the other assessed parameters within a reasonable range. The presented effects need to be taken into account when comparing results across multiple studies or computing ratios between Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria.
- 650 _2
- $a dospělí $7 D000328
- 650 _2
- $a DNA bakterií $x genetika $7 D004269
- 650 _2
- $a feces $x mikrobiologie $7 D005243
- 650 _2
- $a gramnegativní bakterie $x klasifikace $x genetika $x izolace a purifikace $7 D006090
- 650 _2
- $a grampozitivní bakterie $x klasifikace $x genetika $x izolace a purifikace $7 D006094
- 650 _2
- $a zdraví dobrovolníci pro lékařské studie $7 D064368
- 650 _2
- $a vysoce účinné nukleotidové sekvenování $x metody $7 D059014
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 _2
- $a fylogeneze $7 D010802
- 650 _2
- $a RNA ribozomální 16S $x genetika $7 D012336
- 650 _2
- $a reagenční diagnostické soupravy $7 D011933
- 650 _2
- $a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203
- 650 _2
- $a sekvenční analýza DNA $7 D017422
- 650 _2
- $a mladý dospělý $7 D055815
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
- 700 1_
- $a Smerkova, Kristyna $u RECETOX, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, 625 00, Brno, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Zwinsova, Barbora $u RECETOX, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, 625 00, Brno, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Popovici, Vlad $u RECETOX, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, 625 00, Brno, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Micenkova, Lenka $u RECETOX, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, 625 00, Brno, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Sedlar, Karel $u Department of Biomedical Engineering, Brno University of Technology, Technicka 12, Brno, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Budinska, Eva $u RECETOX, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, 625 00, Brno, Czech Republic. budinska@recetox.muni.cz.
- 773 0_
- $w MED00182195 $t Scientific reports $x 2045-2322 $g Roč. 9, č. 1 (2019), s. 13837
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31554833 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20210105 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20210114155201 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1609147 $s 1119992
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2019 $b 9 $c 1 $d 13837 $e 20190925 $i 2045-2322 $m Scientific reports $n Sci Rep $x MED00182195
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20210105