Cargando…
The effect of DNA extraction methodology on gut microbiota research applications
BACKGROUND: The effect that traditional and modern DNA extraction methods have on applications to study the role of gut microbiota in health and disease is a topic of current interest. Genomic DNA was extracted from three faecal samples and one probiotic capsule using three popular methods; chaotrop...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4960752/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27456340 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-016-2171-7 |
_version_ | 1782444579958554624 |
---|---|
author | Gerasimidis, Konstantinos Bertz, Martin Quince, Christopher Brunner, Katja Bruce, Alanna Combet, Emilie Calus, Szymon Loman, Nick Ijaz, Umer Zeeshan |
author_facet | Gerasimidis, Konstantinos Bertz, Martin Quince, Christopher Brunner, Katja Bruce, Alanna Combet, Emilie Calus, Szymon Loman, Nick Ijaz, Umer Zeeshan |
author_sort | Gerasimidis, Konstantinos |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The effect that traditional and modern DNA extraction methods have on applications to study the role of gut microbiota in health and disease is a topic of current interest. Genomic DNA was extracted from three faecal samples and one probiotic capsule using three popular methods; chaotropic (CHAO) method, phenol/chloroform (PHEC) extraction, proprietary kit (QIAG). The performance of each of these methods on DNA yield and quality, microbiota composition using quantitative PCR, deep sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene, and sequencing analysis pipeline was evaluated. RESULTS: The CHAO yielded the highest and the QIAG kit the lowest amount of double-stranded DNA, but the purity of isolated nucleic acids was better for the latter method. The CHAO method yielded a higher concentration of bacterial taxa per mass (g) of faeces. Sequencing coverage was higher in CHAO method but a higher proportion of the initial sequencing reads were retained for assignments to operational taxonomic unit (OTU) in the QIAG kit compared to the other methods. The QIAG kit appeared to have longer trimmed reads and shorter regions of worse quality than the other two methods. A distinct separation of α-diversity indices between different DNA extraction methods was not observed. When compositional dissimilarities between samples were explored, a strong separation was observed according to sample type. The effect of the extraction method was either marginal (Bray–Curtis distance) or none (unweighted Unifrac distance). Taxon membership and abundance in each sample was independent of the DNA extraction method used. CONCLUSIONS: We have benchmarked several DNA extraction methods commonly used in gut microbiota research and their differences depended on the downstream applications intended for use. Caution should be paid when the intention is to pool and analyse samples or data from studies which have used different DNA extraction methods. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13104-016-2171-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4960752 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49607522016-07-27 The effect of DNA extraction methodology on gut microbiota research applications Gerasimidis, Konstantinos Bertz, Martin Quince, Christopher Brunner, Katja Bruce, Alanna Combet, Emilie Calus, Szymon Loman, Nick Ijaz, Umer Zeeshan BMC Res Notes Research Article BACKGROUND: The effect that traditional and modern DNA extraction methods have on applications to study the role of gut microbiota in health and disease is a topic of current interest. Genomic DNA was extracted from three faecal samples and one probiotic capsule using three popular methods; chaotropic (CHAO) method, phenol/chloroform (PHEC) extraction, proprietary kit (QIAG). The performance of each of these methods on DNA yield and quality, microbiota composition using quantitative PCR, deep sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene, and sequencing analysis pipeline was evaluated. RESULTS: The CHAO yielded the highest and the QIAG kit the lowest amount of double-stranded DNA, but the purity of isolated nucleic acids was better for the latter method. The CHAO method yielded a higher concentration of bacterial taxa per mass (g) of faeces. Sequencing coverage was higher in CHAO method but a higher proportion of the initial sequencing reads were retained for assignments to operational taxonomic unit (OTU) in the QIAG kit compared to the other methods. The QIAG kit appeared to have longer trimmed reads and shorter regions of worse quality than the other two methods. A distinct separation of α-diversity indices between different DNA extraction methods was not observed. When compositional dissimilarities between samples were explored, a strong separation was observed according to sample type. The effect of the extraction method was either marginal (Bray–Curtis distance) or none (unweighted Unifrac distance). Taxon membership and abundance in each sample was independent of the DNA extraction method used. CONCLUSIONS: We have benchmarked several DNA extraction methods commonly used in gut microbiota research and their differences depended on the downstream applications intended for use. Caution should be paid when the intention is to pool and analyse samples or data from studies which have used different DNA extraction methods. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13104-016-2171-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-07-26 /pmc/articles/PMC4960752/ /pubmed/27456340 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-016-2171-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Gerasimidis, Konstantinos Bertz, Martin Quince, Christopher Brunner, Katja Bruce, Alanna Combet, Emilie Calus, Szymon Loman, Nick Ijaz, Umer Zeeshan The effect of DNA extraction methodology on gut microbiota research applications |
title | The effect of DNA extraction methodology on gut microbiota research applications |
title_full | The effect of DNA extraction methodology on gut microbiota research applications |
title_fullStr | The effect of DNA extraction methodology on gut microbiota research applications |
title_full_unstemmed | The effect of DNA extraction methodology on gut microbiota research applications |
title_short | The effect of DNA extraction methodology on gut microbiota research applications |
title_sort | effect of dna extraction methodology on gut microbiota research applications |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4960752/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27456340 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-016-2171-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gerasimidiskonstantinos theeffectofdnaextractionmethodologyongutmicrobiotaresearchapplications AT bertzmartin theeffectofdnaextractionmethodologyongutmicrobiotaresearchapplications AT quincechristopher theeffectofdnaextractionmethodologyongutmicrobiotaresearchapplications AT brunnerkatja theeffectofdnaextractionmethodologyongutmicrobiotaresearchapplications AT brucealanna theeffectofdnaextractionmethodologyongutmicrobiotaresearchapplications AT combetemilie theeffectofdnaextractionmethodologyongutmicrobiotaresearchapplications AT calusszymon theeffectofdnaextractionmethodologyongutmicrobiotaresearchapplications AT lomannick theeffectofdnaextractionmethodologyongutmicrobiotaresearchapplications AT ijazumerzeeshan theeffectofdnaextractionmethodologyongutmicrobiotaresearchapplications AT gerasimidiskonstantinos effectofdnaextractionmethodologyongutmicrobiotaresearchapplications AT bertzmartin effectofdnaextractionmethodologyongutmicrobiotaresearchapplications AT quincechristopher effectofdnaextractionmethodologyongutmicrobiotaresearchapplications AT brunnerkatja effectofdnaextractionmethodologyongutmicrobiotaresearchapplications AT brucealanna effectofdnaextractionmethodologyongutmicrobiotaresearchapplications AT combetemilie effectofdnaextractionmethodologyongutmicrobiotaresearchapplications AT calusszymon effectofdnaextractionmethodologyongutmicrobiotaresearchapplications AT lomannick effectofdnaextractionmethodologyongutmicrobiotaresearchapplications AT ijazumerzeeshan effectofdnaextractionmethodologyongutmicrobiotaresearchapplications |