-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Effects of DNA preservation solution and DNA extraction methods on microbial community profiling of soil
P. Iturbe-Espinoza, BW. Brandt, M. Braster, M. Bonte, DM. Brown, RJM. van Spanning
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články
Grantová podpora
216-2015-FONDECYT
FONDECYT-CONCYTEC
- MeSH
- DNA bakterií * genetika izolace a purifikace MeSH
- genetické techniky * normy MeSH
- mikrobiota * genetika MeSH
- monitorování životního prostředí * metody MeSH
- půdní mikrobiologie * MeSH
- RNA ribozomální 16S genetika MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
Microbial community profiling using high-throughput sequencing relies in part on the preservation of the DNA and the effectiveness of the DNA extraction method. This study aimed at understanding to what extent these parameters affect the profiling. We obtained samples treated with and without a preservation solution. Also, we compared DNA extraction kits from Qiagen and Zymo-Research. The types of samples were defined strains, both as single species and mixtures, as well as undefined indigenous microbial communities from soil. We show that the use of a preservation solution resulted in substantial changes in the 16S rRNA gene profiles either due to an overrepresentation of Gram-positive bacteria or to an underrepresentation of Gram-negative bacteria. In addition, 16S rRNA gene profiles were substantially different depending on the type of kit that was used for extraction. The kit from Zymo extracted DNA from different types of bacteria in roughly equal amounts. In contrast, the kit from Qiagen preferentially extracted DNA from Gram-negative bacteria while DNA from Gram-positive bacteria was extracted less effectively. These differences in kit performance strongly influenced the interpretation of our microbial ecology studies.
Ricardo Energy and Environment Harwell UK
Shell Global Solutions International BV The Hague The Netherlands
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc21028084
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20211105134026.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 211105s2021 xxu f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1007/s12223-021-00866-0 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)33834428
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxu
- 100 1_
- $a Iturbe-Espinoza, Paul $u Systems Biology Lab, Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1108, 1081 HZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. p.iturbeespinoza@vu.nl
- 245 10
- $a Effects of DNA preservation solution and DNA extraction methods on microbial community profiling of soil / $c P. Iturbe-Espinoza, BW. Brandt, M. Braster, M. Bonte, DM. Brown, RJM. van Spanning
- 520 9_
- $a Microbial community profiling using high-throughput sequencing relies in part on the preservation of the DNA and the effectiveness of the DNA extraction method. This study aimed at understanding to what extent these parameters affect the profiling. We obtained samples treated with and without a preservation solution. Also, we compared DNA extraction kits from Qiagen and Zymo-Research. The types of samples were defined strains, both as single species and mixtures, as well as undefined indigenous microbial communities from soil. We show that the use of a preservation solution resulted in substantial changes in the 16S rRNA gene profiles either due to an overrepresentation of Gram-positive bacteria or to an underrepresentation of Gram-negative bacteria. In addition, 16S rRNA gene profiles were substantially different depending on the type of kit that was used for extraction. The kit from Zymo extracted DNA from different types of bacteria in roughly equal amounts. In contrast, the kit from Qiagen preferentially extracted DNA from Gram-negative bacteria while DNA from Gram-positive bacteria was extracted less effectively. These differences in kit performance strongly influenced the interpretation of our microbial ecology studies.
- 650 12
- $a DNA bakterií $x genetika $x izolace a purifikace $7 D004269
- 650 12
- $a monitorování životního prostředí $x metody $7 D004784
- 650 12
- $a genetické techniky $x normy $7 D005821
- 650 12
- $a mikrobiota $x genetika $7 D064307
- 650 _2
- $a RNA ribozomální 16S $x genetika $7 D012336
- 650 12
- $a půdní mikrobiologie $7 D012988
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Brandt, Bernd W $u Department of Preventive Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- 700 1_
- $a Braster, Martin $u Systems Biology Lab, Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1108, 1081 HZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- 700 1_
- $a Bonte, Matthijs $u Shell Global Solutions International BV, The Hague, The Netherlands
- 700 1_
- $a Brown, David M $u Ricardo Energy and Environment, Harwell, UK
- 700 1_
- $a van Spanning, Rob J M $u Systems Biology Lab, Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1108, 1081 HZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- 773 0_
- $w MED00011005 $t Folia microbiologica $x 1874-9356 $g Roč. 66, č. 4 (2021), s. 597-606
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33834428 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20211105 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20211105134031 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1719462 $s 1148629
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2021 $b 66 $c 4 $d 597-606 $e 20210409 $i 1874-9356 $m Folia microbiologica $n Folia microbiol. (Prague) $x MED00011005
- GRA __
- $a 216-2015-FONDECYT $p FONDECYT-CONCYTEC
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20211105