Literature DB >> 26812577

The yield and quality of cellular and bacterial DNA extracts from human oral rinse samples are variably affected by the cell lysis methodology.

Mohsen Sohrabi1, Raj G Nair2, Lakshman P Samaranayake3, Li Zhang4, Abu Hasanat Md Zulfiker1, Adnan Ahmetagic1, David Good5, Ming Q Wei6.   

Abstract

Recent culture-independent studies have enabled detailed mapping of human microbiome that has not been hitherto achievable by culture-based methods. DNA extraction is a key element of bacterial culture-independent studies that critically impacts on the outcome of the detected microbial profile. Despite the variations in DNA extraction methods described in the literature, no standardized technique is available for the purpose of microbiome profiling. Hence, standardization of DNA extraction methods is urgently needed to yield comparable data from different studies. We examined the effect of eight different cell lysis protocols on the yield and quality of the extracted DNA from oral rinse samples. These samples were exposed to cell lysis techniques based on enzymatic, mechanical, and a combination of enzymatic-mechanical methods. The outcome measures evaluated were total bacterial population, Firmicutes levels and human DNA contamination (in terms of surrogate GAPDH levels). We noted that all three parameters were significantly affected by the method of cell lysis employed. Although the highest yield of gDNA was obtained using lysozyme-achromopeptidase method, the lysozyme-zirconium beads method yielded the peak quantity of total bacterial DNA and Firmicutes with a lower degree of GAPDH contamination compared with the other methods. Taken together our data clearly points to an urgent need for a consensus, standardized DNA extraction technique to evaluate the oral microbiome using oral rinse samples. Further, if Firmicutes levels are the focus of investigation in oral rinse microbiome analyses then the lysozyme-zirconium bead method would be the method of choice in preference to others.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bacterial cell lysis; DNA; Firmicutes; GAPDH; Oral rinse sample; Total bacteria

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26812577     DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2016.01.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Microbiol Methods        ISSN: 0167-7012            Impact factor:   2.363


  9 in total

1.  Increasing Reproducibility in Oral Microbiome Research.

Authors:  Divya Gopinath; Rohit Kunnath Menon
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2021

2.  The saliva microbiome profiles are minimally affected by collection method or DNA extraction protocols.

Authors:  Yenkai Lim; Makrina Totsika; Mark Morrison; Chamindie Punyadeera
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-08-17       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Evaluating the Impact of DNA Extraction Method on the Representation of Human Oral Bacterial and Fungal Communities.

Authors:  Anna Vesty; Kristi Biswas; Michael W Taylor; Kim Gear; Richard G Douglas
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-01-18       Impact factor: 3.240

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

Authors:  Jennifer Rosenbaum; Mykhaylo Usyk; Zigui Chen; Christine P Zolnik; Heidi E Jones; Levi Waldron; Jennifer B Dowd; Lorna E Thorpe; Robert D Burk
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-02-06       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Optimizing the quality of clinical studies on oral microbiome: A practical guide for planning, performing, and reporting.

Authors:  Egija Zaura; Vincent Y Pappalardo; Mark J Buijs; Catherine M C Volgenant; Bernd W Brandt
Journal:  Periodontol 2000       Date:  2020-11-23       Impact factor: 7.589

6.  Assessment of two DNA extraction kits for profiling poultry respiratory microbiota from multiple sample types.

Authors:  Michael E C Abundo; John M Ngunjiri; Kara J M Taylor; Hana Ji; Amir Ghorbani; Mahesh K C; Bonnie P Weber; Timothy J Johnson; Chang-Won Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Quantifying the biases in metagenome mining for realistic assessment of microbial ecology of naturally fermented foods.

Authors:  Santosh Keisam; Wahengbam Romi; Giasuddin Ahmed; Kumaraswamy Jeyaram
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-09-27       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  How to Process Sputum Samples and Extract Bacterial DNA for Microbiota Analysis.

Authors:  Leonardo Terranova; Martina Oriano; Antonio Teri; Luca Ruggiero; Camilla Tafuro; Paola Marchisio; Andrea Gramegna; Martina Contarini; Elisa Franceschi; Samantha Sottotetti; Lisa Cariani; Annamaria Bevivino; James D Chalmers; Stefano Aliberti; Francesco Blasi
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2018-10-20       Impact factor: 5.923

9.  Storage media and not extraction method has the biggest impact on recovery of bacteria from the oral microbiome.

Authors:  Xiaoyan Zhou; Shanika Nanayakkara; Jin-Long Gao; Ky-Anh Nguyen; Christina J Adler
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-10-18       Impact factor: 4.379

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.