Comparison of two DNA extraction methods widely used in aquatic microbial ecology

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Mateus-Barros, Erick
Data de Publicação: 2019
Outros Autores: Meneghine, Aylan K., Bagatini, Inessa Lacativa, Fernandes, Camila C. [UNESP], Kishi, Luciano T. [UNESP], Vieira, Armando A.H., Sarmento, Hugo
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2019.02.005
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/188735
Resumo: In recent years, the rapid advances of culture-independent methods and new molecular tools have revolutionized our understanding of microbial biodiversity and ecological functions. DNA extraction from microbial communities is a critical step in this process and several methods have been proposed and used, but the influence of the extraction method on the outcome and ultimately on ecological inferences from the results is not yet precisely determined. Here, we compared two of the most commonly used extraction methods in aquatic microbial ecology, and investigated whether the two methods yielded comparable results for community ecology analyses. We extracted DNA from 15 different shallow lakes with phenol:chloroform, a classical and widely used extraction method, and with the PowerSoil DNA isolation Kit, often suggested as the standard DNA extraction method, with some adaptations for aquatic environments. We found that although only 5% of all OTUs showed significant differences in pairwise comparisons (using the 15 lakes as replicates), these OTUs accounted for >35% (on average) of the relative abundance. Diversity and richness did not differ significantly between the two extraction methods, but the beta-dispersion of the communities indicated that the organic extraction yielded more homogeneous communities, while the kit extraction generated variability. Consequently, we conclude that despite the small number of OTUs with significant differences, their impact on the community composition obtained was not negligible, and therefore the results from these two extraction methods were not comparable.
id UNSP_3a5dc652bdd5caa345b11ea611af9abb
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/188735
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling Comparison of two DNA extraction methods widely used in aquatic microbial ecologyAquatic microbial ecologyHigh-throughput sequencingNext-generation sequencingPhenol:chloroform extractionPowerSoil extraction kitIn recent years, the rapid advances of culture-independent methods and new molecular tools have revolutionized our understanding of microbial biodiversity and ecological functions. DNA extraction from microbial communities is a critical step in this process and several methods have been proposed and used, but the influence of the extraction method on the outcome and ultimately on ecological inferences from the results is not yet precisely determined. Here, we compared two of the most commonly used extraction methods in aquatic microbial ecology, and investigated whether the two methods yielded comparable results for community ecology analyses. We extracted DNA from 15 different shallow lakes with phenol:chloroform, a classical and widely used extraction method, and with the PowerSoil DNA isolation Kit, often suggested as the standard DNA extraction method, with some adaptations for aquatic environments. We found that although only 5% of all OTUs showed significant differences in pairwise comparisons (using the 15 lakes as replicates), these OTUs accounted for >35% (on average) of the relative abundance. Diversity and richness did not differ significantly between the two extraction methods, but the beta-dispersion of the communities indicated that the organic extraction yielded more homogeneous communities, while the kit extraction generated variability. Consequently, we conclude that despite the small number of OTUs with significant differences, their impact on the community composition obtained was not negligible, and therefore the results from these two extraction methods were not comparable.Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)Universidade Estadual PaulistaFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCar) Department of Hydrobiology Laboratory of Microbial Processes and BiodiversityPost Graduate Program in Ecology and Natural Resources (PPGERN) UFSCarUFSCar Department of Botany Laboratory of PhycologyUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias Departamento de Tecnologia Laboratório de Bioquímica de Microrganismos e Plantas – LBMPUNESP Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias Departamento de Tecnologia Laboratório Multiusuário Centralizado para Sequenciamento de DNA em Larga Escala e Análise de Expressão Gênica – LMSeqUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias Departamento de Tecnologia Laboratório de Bioquímica de Microrganismos e Plantas – LBMPUNESP Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias Departamento de Tecnologia Laboratório Multiusuário Centralizado para Sequenciamento de DNA em Larga Escala e Análise de Expressão Gênica – LMSeqUniversidade Estadual Paulista: 2009/53984-2FAPESP: 2011/50054-4FAPESP: 2013/18083-0FAPESP: 2014/14139-3Universidade Estadual Paulista: 2016/07679-7CNPq: 309514/2017-7Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCar)Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)Mateus-Barros, ErickMeneghine, Aylan K.Bagatini, Inessa LacativaFernandes, Camila C. [UNESP]Kishi, Luciano T. [UNESP]Vieira, Armando A.H.Sarmento, Hugo2019-10-06T16:17:35Z2019-10-06T16:17:35Z2019-04-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article12-17http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2019.02.005Journal of Microbiological Methods, v. 159, p. 12-17.1872-83590167-7012http://hdl.handle.net/11449/18873510.1016/j.mimet.2019.02.0052-s2.0-85061643788Scopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengJournal of Microbiological Methodsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2021-10-22T19:03:31Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/188735Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462021-10-22T19:03:31Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Comparison of two DNA extraction methods widely used in aquatic microbial ecology
title Comparison of two DNA extraction methods widely used in aquatic microbial ecology
spellingShingle Comparison of two DNA extraction methods widely used in aquatic microbial ecology
Mateus-Barros, Erick
Aquatic microbial ecology
High-throughput sequencing
Next-generation sequencing
Phenol:chloroform extraction
PowerSoil extraction kit
title_short Comparison of two DNA extraction methods widely used in aquatic microbial ecology
title_full Comparison of two DNA extraction methods widely used in aquatic microbial ecology
title_fullStr Comparison of two DNA extraction methods widely used in aquatic microbial ecology
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of two DNA extraction methods widely used in aquatic microbial ecology
title_sort Comparison of two DNA extraction methods widely used in aquatic microbial ecology
author Mateus-Barros, Erick
author_facet Mateus-Barros, Erick
Meneghine, Aylan K.
Bagatini, Inessa Lacativa
Fernandes, Camila C. [UNESP]
Kishi, Luciano T. [UNESP]
Vieira, Armando A.H.
Sarmento, Hugo
author_role author
author2 Meneghine, Aylan K.
Bagatini, Inessa Lacativa
Fernandes, Camila C. [UNESP]
Kishi, Luciano T. [UNESP]
Vieira, Armando A.H.
Sarmento, Hugo
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCar)
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Mateus-Barros, Erick
Meneghine, Aylan K.
Bagatini, Inessa Lacativa
Fernandes, Camila C. [UNESP]
Kishi, Luciano T. [UNESP]
Vieira, Armando A.H.
Sarmento, Hugo
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Aquatic microbial ecology
High-throughput sequencing
Next-generation sequencing
Phenol:chloroform extraction
PowerSoil extraction kit
topic Aquatic microbial ecology
High-throughput sequencing
Next-generation sequencing
Phenol:chloroform extraction
PowerSoil extraction kit
description In recent years, the rapid advances of culture-independent methods and new molecular tools have revolutionized our understanding of microbial biodiversity and ecological functions. DNA extraction from microbial communities is a critical step in this process and several methods have been proposed and used, but the influence of the extraction method on the outcome and ultimately on ecological inferences from the results is not yet precisely determined. Here, we compared two of the most commonly used extraction methods in aquatic microbial ecology, and investigated whether the two methods yielded comparable results for community ecology analyses. We extracted DNA from 15 different shallow lakes with phenol:chloroform, a classical and widely used extraction method, and with the PowerSoil DNA isolation Kit, often suggested as the standard DNA extraction method, with some adaptations for aquatic environments. We found that although only 5% of all OTUs showed significant differences in pairwise comparisons (using the 15 lakes as replicates), these OTUs accounted for >35% (on average) of the relative abundance. Diversity and richness did not differ significantly between the two extraction methods, but the beta-dispersion of the communities indicated that the organic extraction yielded more homogeneous communities, while the kit extraction generated variability. Consequently, we conclude that despite the small number of OTUs with significant differences, their impact on the community composition obtained was not negligible, and therefore the results from these two extraction methods were not comparable.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-10-06T16:17:35Z
2019-10-06T16:17:35Z
2019-04-01
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2019.02.005
Journal of Microbiological Methods, v. 159, p. 12-17.
1872-8359
0167-7012
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/188735
10.1016/j.mimet.2019.02.005
2-s2.0-85061643788
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2019.02.005
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/188735
identifier_str_mv Journal of Microbiological Methods, v. 159, p. 12-17.
1872-8359
0167-7012
10.1016/j.mimet.2019.02.005
2-s2.0-85061643788
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Microbiological Methods
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 12-17
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Scopus
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799965352568815616