Cargando…

Evaluation of Oral Cavity DNA Extraction Methods on Bacterial and Fungal Microbiota

The objective of this study was to evaluate the most effective method of DNA extraction of oral mouthwash samples for use in microbiome studies that utilize next generation sequencing (NGS). Eight enzymatic and mechanical DNA extraction methods were tested. Extracted DNA was amplified using barcoded...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rosenbaum, Jennifer, Usyk, Mykhaylo, Chen, Zigui, Zolnik, Christine P., Jones, Heidi E., Waldron, Levi, Dowd, Jennifer B., Thorpe, Lorna E., Burk, Robert D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6365504/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30728424
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-38049-6
_version_ 1783393431551213568
author Rosenbaum, Jennifer
Usyk, Mykhaylo
Chen, Zigui
Zolnik, Christine P.
Jones, Heidi E.
Waldron, Levi
Dowd, Jennifer B.
Thorpe, Lorna E.
Burk, Robert D.
author_facet Rosenbaum, Jennifer
Usyk, Mykhaylo
Chen, Zigui
Zolnik, Christine P.
Jones, Heidi E.
Waldron, Levi
Dowd, Jennifer B.
Thorpe, Lorna E.
Burk, Robert D.
author_sort Rosenbaum, Jennifer
collection PubMed
description The objective of this study was to evaluate the most effective method of DNA extraction of oral mouthwash samples for use in microbiome studies that utilize next generation sequencing (NGS). Eight enzymatic and mechanical DNA extraction methods were tested. Extracted DNA was amplified using barcoded primers targeting the V6 variable region of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene and the ITS1 region of the fungal ribosomal gene cluster and sequenced using the Illumina NGS platform. Sequenced reads were analyzed using QIIME and R. The eight methods yielded significantly different quantities of DNA (p < 0.001), with the phenol-chloroform extraction method producing the highest total yield. There were no significant differences in observed bacterial or fungal Shannon diversity (p = 0.64, p = 0.93 respectively) by extraction method. Bray-Curtis beta-diversity did not demonstrate statistically significant differences between the eight extraction methods based on bacterial (R(2) = 0.086, p = 1.00) and fungal (R(2) = 0.039, p = 1.00) assays. No differences were seen between methods with or without bead-beating. These data indicate that choice of DNA extraction method affect total DNA recovery without significantly affecting the observed microbiome.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6365504
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63655042019-02-08 Evaluation of Oral Cavity DNA Extraction Methods on Bacterial and Fungal Microbiota Rosenbaum, Jennifer Usyk, Mykhaylo Chen, Zigui Zolnik, Christine P. Jones, Heidi E. Waldron, Levi Dowd, Jennifer B. Thorpe, Lorna E. Burk, Robert D. Sci Rep Article The objective of this study was to evaluate the most effective method of DNA extraction of oral mouthwash samples for use in microbiome studies that utilize next generation sequencing (NGS). Eight enzymatic and mechanical DNA extraction methods were tested. Extracted DNA was amplified using barcoded primers targeting the V6 variable region of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene and the ITS1 region of the fungal ribosomal gene cluster and sequenced using the Illumina NGS platform. Sequenced reads were analyzed using QIIME and R. The eight methods yielded significantly different quantities of DNA (p < 0.001), with the phenol-chloroform extraction method producing the highest total yield. There were no significant differences in observed bacterial or fungal Shannon diversity (p = 0.64, p = 0.93 respectively) by extraction method. Bray-Curtis beta-diversity did not demonstrate statistically significant differences between the eight extraction methods based on bacterial (R(2) = 0.086, p = 1.00) and fungal (R(2) = 0.039, p = 1.00) assays. No differences were seen between methods with or without bead-beating. These data indicate that choice of DNA extraction method affect total DNA recovery without significantly affecting the observed microbiome. Nature Publishing Group UK 2019-02-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6365504/ /pubmed/30728424 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-38049-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as 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 images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Rosenbaum, Jennifer
Usyk, Mykhaylo
Chen, Zigui
Zolnik, Christine P.
Jones, Heidi E.
Waldron, Levi
Dowd, Jennifer B.
Thorpe, Lorna E.
Burk, Robert D.
Evaluation of Oral Cavity DNA Extraction Methods on Bacterial and Fungal Microbiota
title Evaluation of Oral Cavity DNA Extraction Methods on Bacterial and Fungal Microbiota
title_full Evaluation of Oral Cavity DNA Extraction Methods on Bacterial and Fungal Microbiota
title_fullStr Evaluation of Oral Cavity DNA Extraction Methods on Bacterial and Fungal Microbiota
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Oral Cavity DNA Extraction Methods on Bacterial and Fungal Microbiota
title_short Evaluation of Oral Cavity DNA Extraction Methods on Bacterial and Fungal Microbiota
title_sort evaluation of oral cavity dna extraction methods on bacterial and fungal microbiota
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6365504/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30728424
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-38049-6
work_keys_str_mv AT rosenbaumjennifer evaluationoforalcavitydnaextractionmethodsonbacterialandfungalmicrobiota
AT usykmykhaylo evaluationoforalcavitydnaextractionmethodsonbacterialandfungalmicrobiota
AT chenzigui evaluationoforalcavitydnaextractionmethodsonbacterialandfungalmicrobiota
AT zolnikchristinep evaluationoforalcavitydnaextractionmethodsonbacterialandfungalmicrobiota
AT jonesheidie evaluationoforalcavitydnaextractionmethodsonbacterialandfungalmicrobiota
AT waldronlevi evaluationoforalcavitydnaextractionmethodsonbacterialandfungalmicrobiota
AT dowdjenniferb evaluationoforalcavitydnaextractionmethodsonbacterialandfungalmicrobiota
AT thorpelornae evaluationoforalcavitydnaextractionmethodsonbacterialandfungalmicrobiota
AT burkrobertd evaluationoforalcavitydnaextractionmethodsonbacterialandfungalmicrobiota