Literature DB >> 29394525

Optimal extraction methods for the simultaneous analysis of DNA from diverse organisms and sample types.

Syrie M Hermans1, Hannah L Buckley2, Gavin Lear1.   

Abstract

Using environmental DNA (eDNA) to assess the distribution of micro- and macroorganisms is becoming increasingly popular. However, the comparability and reliability of these studies is not well understood as we lack evidence on how different DNA extraction methods affect the detection of different organisms, and how this varies among sample types. Our aim was to quantify biases associated with six DNA extraction methods and identify one which is optimal for eDNA research targeting multiple organisms and sample types. We assessed each methods' ability to simultaneously extract bacterial, fungal, plant, animal and fish DNA from soil, leaf litter, stream water, stream sediment, stream biofilm and kick-net samples, as well as from mock communities. Method choice affected alpha-diversity for several combinations of taxon and sample type, with the majority of the differences occurring in the bacterial communities. While a single method performed optimally for the extraction of DNA from bacterial, fungal and plant mock communities, different methods performed best for invertebrate and fish mock communities. The consistency of methods, as measured by the similarity of community compositions resulting from replicate extractions, varied and was lowest for the animal communities. Collectively, these data provide the first comprehensive assessment of the biases associated with DNA extraction for both different sample types and taxa types, allowing us to identify DNeasy PowerSoil as a universal DNA extraction method. The adoption of standardized approaches for eDNA extraction will ensure that results can be more reliably compared, and biases quantified, thereby advancing eDNA as an ecological research tool.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Keywords:  DNA extraction; eDNA; environmental DNA; macroorganisms; microorganisms

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29394525     DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12762

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Ecol Resour        ISSN: 1755-098X            Impact factor:   7.090


  10 in total

1.  Microbial community assembly in a multi-layer dendritic metacommunity.

Authors:  Nathan I Wisnoski; Jay T Lennon
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2020-10-10       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Influence of DNA extraction kits on freshwater fungal DNA metabarcoding.

Authors:  Shunsuke Matsuoka; Yoriko Sugiyama; Mariko Nagano; Hideyuki Doi
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2022-05-27       Impact factor: 3.061

3.  Perspectives on the Impact of Sampling Design and Intensity on Soil Microbial Diversity Estimates.

Authors:  Syrie M Hermans; Hannah L Buckley; Gavin Lear
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2019-08-07       Impact factor: 5.640

4.  Have the cake and eat it: Optimizing nondestructive DNA metabarcoding of macroinvertebrate samples for freshwater biomonitoring.

Authors:  Filipa M S Martins; Mafalda Galhardo; Ana F Filipe; Amílcar Teixeira; Paulo Pinheiro; Joana Paupério; Paulo C Alves; Pedro Beja
Journal:  Mol Ecol Resour       Date:  2019-04-29       Impact factor: 7.090

5.  Effectiveness assessment of using riverine water eDNA to simultaneously monitor the riverine and riparian biodiversity information.

Authors:  Haile Yang; Hao Du; Hongfang Qi; Luxian Yu; Xindong Hou; Hui Zhang; Junyi Li; Jinming Wu; Chengyou Wang; Qiong Zhou; Qiwei Wei
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-12-20       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Diet composition and diversity does not explain fewer, smaller urban nestlings.

Authors:  Erin E Grabarczyk; Sharon A Gill; Maarten J Vonhof; Magdy S Alabady; Zengyan Wang; Jason M Schmidt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Effects of sampling strategies and DNA extraction methods on eDNA metabarcoding: A case study of estuarine fish diversity monitoring.

Authors:  Hui-Ting Ruan; Rui-Li Wang; Hong-Ting Li; Li Liu; Tian-Xu Kuang; Min Li; Ke-Shu Zou
Journal:  Zool Res       Date:  2022-03-18

8.  Bovine milk microbiota: Evaluation of different DNA extraction protocols for challenging samples.

Authors:  Julia A Schwenker; Meike Friedrichsen; Silvio Waschina; Corinna Bang; Andre Franke; Ricarda Mayer; Christina S Hölzel
Journal:  Microbiologyopen       Date:  2022-04       Impact factor: 3.904

Review 9.  Complex interactions between the microbiome and cancer immune therapy.

Authors:  Drew J Schwartz; Olivia N Rebeck; Gautam Dantas
Journal:  Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci       Date:  2019-09-17       Impact factor: 6.250

10.  Comparing sediment DNA extraction methods for assessing organic enrichment associated with marine aquaculture.

Authors:  John K Pearman; Nigel B Keeley; Susanna A Wood; Olivier Laroche; Anastasija Zaiko; Georgia Thomson-Laing; Laura Biessy; Javier Atalah; Xavier Pochon
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2020-10-27       Impact factor: 2.984

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.