Fangming Yang1,2, Jihua Sun3,4, Huainian Luo3, Huahui Ren2,4, Hongcheng Zhou5, Yuxiang Lin2, Mo Han2,4, Bing Chen2, Hailong Liao5, Susanne Brix6, Junhua Li2,7, Huanming Yang2,8, Karsten Kristiansen2,4, Huanzi Zhong2,4. 1. School of Future Technology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 101408, China. 2. BGI-Shenzhen, Bei Shan Industrial Area, Yantian, Shenzhen 518083, China. 3. BGI Europe A/S, COBIS, 2200 Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Laboratory of Genomics and Molecular Biomedicine, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. 5. China National Genebank, Jinsha Road, Dapeng District, Shenzhen 518120, China. 6. Department of Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. 7. School of Biology and Biological Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China. 8. James D. Watson Institute of Genome Sciences, Hangzhou 310058, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Shotgun metagenomic sequencing has improved our understanding of the human gut microbiota. Various DNA extraction methods have been compared to find protocols that robustly and most accurately reflect the original microbial community structures. However, these recommendations can be further refined by considering the time and cost demands in dealing with samples from very large human cohorts. Additionally, fungal DNA extraction performance has so far been little investigated. RESULTS: We compared 6 DNA extraction protocols, MagPure Fast Stool DNA KF Kit B, Macherey Nagel™ NucleoSpin™®Soil kit, Zymo Research Quick-DNA™ Fecal/Soil Microbe kit, MOBIO DNeasy PowerSoil kit, the manual non-commercial protocol MetaHIT, and the recently published protocol Q using 1 microbial mock community (MMC) (containing 8 bacterial and 2 fungal strains) and fecal samples. All samples were manually extracted and subjected to shotgun metagenomics sequencing. Extracting DNA revealed high reproducibility within all 6 protocols, but microbial extraction efficiencies varied. The MMC results demonstrated that bead size was a determining factor for fungal and bacterial DNA yields. In human fecal samples, the MagPure bacterial extraction performed as well as the standardized protocol Q but was faster and more cost-effective. Extraction using the PowerSoil protocol resulted in a significantly higher ratio of gram-negative to gram-positive bacteria than other protocols, which might contribute to reported gut microbial differences between healthy adults. CONCLUSIONS: We emphasize the importance of bead size selection for bacterial and fungal DNA extraction. More importantly, the performance of the novel protocol MP matched that of the recommended standardized protocol Q but consumed less time, was more cost-effective, and is recommended for further large-scale human gut metagenomic studies.
BACKGROUND: Shotgun metagenomic sequencing has improved our understanding of the human gut microbiota. Various DNA extraction methods have been compared to find protocols that robustly and most accurately reflect the original microbial community structures. However, these recommendations can be further refined by considering the time and cost demands in dealing with samples from very large human cohorts. Additionally, fungal DNA extraction performance has so far been little investigated. RESULTS: We compared 6 DNA extraction protocols, MagPure Fast Stool DNA KF Kit B, Macherey Nagel™ NucleoSpin™®Soil kit, Zymo Research Quick-DNA™ Fecal/Soil Microbe kit, MOBIO DNeasy PowerSoil kit, the manual non-commercial protocol MetaHIT, and the recently published protocol Q using 1 microbial mock community (MMC) (containing 8 bacterial and 2 fungal strains) and fecal samples. All samples were manually extracted and subjected to shotgun metagenomics sequencing. Extracting DNA revealed high reproducibility within all 6 protocols, but microbial extraction efficiencies varied. The MMC results demonstrated that bead size was a determining factor for fungal and bacterial DNA yields. In human fecal samples, the MagPure bacterial extraction performed as well as the standardized protocol Q but was faster and more cost-effective. Extraction using the PowerSoil protocol resulted in a significantly higher ratio of gram-negative to gram-positive bacteria than other protocols, which might contribute to reported gut microbial differences between healthy adults. CONCLUSIONS: We emphasize the importance of bead size selection for bacterial and fungal DNA extraction. More importantly, the performance of the novel protocol MP matched that of the recommended standardized protocol Q but consumed less time, was more cost-effective, and is recommended for further large-scale human gut metagenomic studies.
Authors: Paul I Costea; Georg Zeller; Shinichi Sunagawa; Eric Pelletier; Adriana Alberti; Florence Levenez; Melanie Tramontano; Marja Driessen; Rajna Hercog; Ferris-Elias Jung; Jens Roat Kultima; Matthew R Hayward; Luis Pedro Coelho; Emma Allen-Vercoe; Laurie Bertrand; Michael Blaut; Jillian R M Brown; Thomas Carton; Stéphanie Cools-Portier; Michelle Daigneault; Muriel Derrien; Anne Druesne; Willem M de Vos; B Brett Finlay; Harry J Flint; Francisco Guarner; Masahira Hattori; Hans Heilig; Ruth Ann Luna; Johan van Hylckama Vlieg; Jana Junick; Ingeborg Klymiuk; Philippe Langella; Emmanuelle Le Chatelier; Volker Mai; Chaysavanh Manichanh; Jennifer C Martin; Clémentine Mery; Hidetoshi Morita; Paul W O'Toole; Céline Orvain; Kiran Raosaheb Patil; John Penders; Søren Persson; Nicolas Pons; Milena Popova; Anne Salonen; Delphine Saulnier; Karen P Scott; Bhagirath Singh; Kathleen Slezak; Patrick Veiga; James Versalovic; Liping Zhao; Erwin G Zoetendal; S Dusko Ehrlich; Joel Dore; Peer Bork Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2017-10-02 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Christopher Quince; Alan W Walker; Jared T Simpson; Nicholas J Loman; Nicola Segata Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2017-09-12 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Andrea K Nash; Thomas A Auchtung; Matthew C Wong; Daniel P Smith; Jonathan R Gesell; Matthew C Ross; Christopher J Stewart; Ginger A Metcalf; Donna M Muzny; Richard A Gibbs; Nadim J Ajami; Joseph F Petrosino Journal: Microbiome Date: 2017-11-25 Impact factor: 14.650
Authors: Nicholas A Kennedy; Alan W Walker; Susan H Berry; Sylvia H Duncan; Freda M Farquarson; Petra Louis; John M Thomson; Jack Satsangi; Harry J Flint; Julian Parkhill; Charlie W Lees; Georgina L Hold Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-24 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Tao Zuo; Sunny H Wong; Chun Pan Cheung; Kelvin Lam; Rashid Lui; Kitty Cheung; Fen Zhang; Whitney Tang; Jessica Y L Ching; Justin C Y Wu; Paul K S Chan; Joseph J Y Sung; Jun Yu; Francis K L Chan; Siew C Ng Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Marie S A Palmnäs-Bédard; Giuseppina Costabile; Claudia Vetrani; Sebastian Åberg; Yommine Hjalmarsson; Johan Dicksved; Gabriele Riccardi; Rikard Landberg Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2022-10-06 Impact factor: 8.472