» Articles » PMID: 38622248

Comparison of DNA Extraction Methods on Different Sample Matrices Within the Same Terrestrial Ecosystem

Overview
Journal Sci Rep
Specialty Science
Date 2024 Apr 15
PMID 38622248
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Metataxonomic studies of ecosystem microbiotas require the simultaneous processing of samples with contrasting physical and biochemical traits. However, there are no published studies of comparisons of different DNA extraction kits to characterize the microbiotas of the main components of terrestrial ecosystems. Here, and to our knowledge for the first time, five DNA extraction kits were used to investigate the composition and diversity of the microbiota of a subset of samples typically studied in terrestrial ecosystems such as bulk soil, rhizosphere soil, invertebrate taxa and mammalian feces. DNA extraction kit was associated with changes in the relative abundance of hundreds of ASVs, in the same samples, resulting in significant differences in alpha and beta diversity estimates of their microbiotas. Importantly, the impact of DNA extraction kit on sample diversity varies according to sample type, with mammalian feces and soil samples showing the most and least consistent diversity estimates across DNA extraction kits, respectively. We show that the MACHEREY-NAGEL NucleoSpin® Soil kit was associated with the highest alpha diversity estimates, providing the highest contribution to the overall sample diversity, as indicated by comparisons with computationally assembled reference communities, and is recommended to be used for any large-scale microbiota study of terrestrial ecosystems.

Citing Articles

Impact of storage and extraction methods on peat soil microbiomes.

Cronin D, Li Y, Evans P, Tyson G, Woodcroft B, Rich V PeerJ. 2024; 12:e18745.

PMID: 39726749 PMC: 11670759. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18745.


A global comparison of surface and subsurface microbiomes reveals large-scale biodiversity gradients, and a marine-terrestrial divide.

Ruff S, de Angelis I, Mullis M, Payet J, Magnabosco C, Lloyd K Sci Adv. 2024; 10(51):eadq0645.

PMID: 39693444 PMC: 11654699. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adq0645.

References
1.
Hermans S, Buckley H, Lear G . Optimal extraction methods for the simultaneous analysis of DNA from diverse organisms and sample types. Mol Ecol Resour. 2018; 18(3):557-569. DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12762. View

2.
Schiebelhut L, Abboud S, Gomez Daglio L, Swift H, Dawson M . A comparison of DNA extraction methods for high-throughput DNA analyses. Mol Ecol Resour. 2016; 17(4):721-729. DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12620. View

3.
Meadow J, Altrichter A, Green J . Mobile phones carry the personal microbiome of their owners. PeerJ. 2014; 2:e447. PMC: 4081285. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.447. View

4.
Bais H, Park S, Weir T, Callaway R, Vivanco J . How plants communicate using the underground information superhighway. Trends Plant Sci. 2004; 9(1):26-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.tplants.2003.11.008. View

5.
Love M, Huber W, Anders S . Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 2014; 15(12):550. PMC: 4302049. DOI: 10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8. View