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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gerasimidis, Konstantinos, Bertz, Martin, Quince, Christopher, Brunner, Katja, Bruce, Alanna, Combet, Emilie, Calus, Szymon, Loman, Nick, Ijaz, Umer Zeeshan
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