Comparison of two bacterial DNA extraction methods from non-polluted and polluted soils
Language English Country United States Media print-electronic
Document type Evaluation Study, Journal Article
PubMed
28667598
DOI
10.1007/s12223-017-0530-y
PII: 10.1007/s12223-017-0530-y
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Bacteria classification genetics isolation & purification metabolism MeSH
- Chemistry Techniques, Analytical methods MeSH
- DNA, Bacterial genetics isolation & purification MeSH
- Humic Substances MeSH
- Soil Pollutants analysis metabolism MeSH
- Polymerase Chain Reaction MeSH
- Soil chemistry MeSH
- Soil Microbiology MeSH
- Environmental Pollution MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Evaluation Study MeSH
- Names of Substances
- DNA, Bacterial MeSH
- Humic Substances MeSH
- Soil Pollutants MeSH
- Soil MeSH
DNA extraction from soil samples is a critical step for molecular biology analyses. The present study compared the efficiency of two DNA isolation methods from non-polluted and polluted soils with or without the presence of a plant. Both applied methods used chemical and physical lyses, but method 1 had an additional physical disruption. The main difference between these two methods was the humic acid purification technique as it was carried out during cell lysis for method 1 and after cell lysis for method 2. Samples were assessed on the basis of their yield and DNA purity as well as their bacterial quantity and diversity. Based on our results, method 1 proved to be more effective at removing protein and RNA, whereas method 2 proved to be more effective at removing humic acids. Although no differences were obtained in terms of the DNA yield, both the bacterial quantity and community structure were affected by the method used. Method 1 allowed for the recovery of more information than method 2, and polluted soil was more sensitive to the DNA extraction procedure. We recommend carefully selecting the DNA extraction method, especially when soil is disturbed.
See more in PubMed
Environ Microbiol. 2006 Feb;8(2):308-20 PubMed
BMC Res Notes. 2012 Dec 03;5:668 PubMed
J Microbiol Methods. 2002 May;49(3):255-64 PubMed
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1996 Nov;62(11):4049-59 PubMed
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2009 Apr;82(5):983-93 PubMed
Microbiologyopen. 2014 Dec;3(6):910-21 PubMed
Science. 2008 May 23;320(5879):1034-9 PubMed
J Microbiol Methods. 2003 Jul;54(1):37-45 PubMed
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1996 Mar;62(3):1102-6 PubMed
Lett Appl Microbiol. 1991 Jul;13(1):21-4 PubMed
FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2011 Oct;78(1):31-49 PubMed
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2007 Jul;272(2):269-75 PubMed
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2007 Dec;77(4):955-64 PubMed
Curr Issues Mol Biol. 2003 Jan;5(1):1-8 PubMed
J Microbiol Methods. 2004 Jun;57(3):399-407 PubMed
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001 May;67(5):2354-9 PubMed
J Microbiol Methods. 2011 Mar;84(3):454-60 PubMed
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1996 Feb;62(2):316-22 PubMed
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1994 May;60(5):1572-80 PubMed
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1993 Aug;59(8):2657-65 PubMed
Sci Total Environ. 2005 Apr 1;341(1-3):265-79 PubMed
Microb Biotechnol. 2012 Jan;5(1):135-41 PubMed
Biotechniques. 1995 Jan;18(1):62-3 PubMed
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1993 Mar;59(3):695-700 PubMed
J Microbiol Methods. 2004 Feb;56(2):181-91 PubMed
