Background:udThe effect that traditional and modern DNA extraction methods have on applications to study the role of gut microbiota in health and disease is a topic of current interest. Genomic DNA was extracted from three faecal samples and one probiotic capsule using three popular methods; chaotropic (CHAO) method, phenol/chloroform (PHEC) extraction, proprietary kit (QIAG). The performance of each of these methods on DNA yield and quality, microbiota composition using quantitative PCR, deep sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene, and sequencing analysis pipeline was evaluated.ududResults:udThe CHAO yielded the highest and the QIAG kit the lowest amount of double-stranded DNA, but the purity of isolated nucleic acids was better for the latter method. The CHAO method yielded a higher concentration of bacterial taxa per mass (g) of faeces. Sequencing coverage was higher in CHAO method but a higher proportion of the initial sequencing reads were retained for assignments to operational taxonomic unit (OTU) in the QIAG kit compared to the other methods. The QIAG kit appeared to have longer trimmed reads and shorter regions of worse quality than the other two methods. A distinct separation of α-diversity indices between different DNA extraction methods was not observed. When compositional dissimilarities between samples were explored, a strong separation was observed according to sample type. The effect of the extraction method was either marginal (Bray–Curtis distance) or none (unweighted Unifrac distance). Taxon membership and abundance in each sample was independent of the DNA extraction method used.ududConclusions:udWe have benchmarked several DNA extraction methods commonly used in gut microbiota research and their differences depended on the downstream applications intended for use. Caution should be paid when the intention is to pool and analyse samples or data from studies which have used different DNA extraction methods.
展开▼
机译:背景:传统和现代DNA提取方法对研究肠道菌群在健康和疾病中的作用的应用产生的影响是当前令人关注的话题。使用三种常用方法从三个粪便样品和一个益生菌胶囊中提取基因组DNA。离液(CHAO)方法,苯酚/氯仿(PHEC)萃取,专有试剂盒(QIAG)。评估了每种方法对DNA产量和质量,使用定量PCR的微生物群组成,16S rRNA基因的深度测序以及测序分析流程的性能。 ud ud结果: udCHA产生了最高的结果,QIAG试剂盒最低数量的双链DNA,但分离的核酸的纯度对于后一种方法更好。 CHAO方法每单位质量(g)粪便产生较高的细菌类群浓度。在CHAO方法中,测序覆盖率更高,但与其他方法相比,QIAG试剂盒中分配给操作生物分类单位(OTU)的初始测序读数保留的比例更高。与其他两种方法相比,QIAG试剂盒似乎具有更长的修剪读数和更差质量的较短区域。没有观察到不同DNA提取方法之间的α多样性指数的明显分离。当探索样品之间的成分差异时,根据样品类型观察到强烈分离。提取方法的效果是边际(Bray–Curtis距离)或无(未加权Unifrac距离)。每个样品中的分类单元成员和丰度均与所使用的DNA提取方法无关。 ud ud结论: ud我们已经对肠道菌群研究中常用的几种DNA提取方法进行了基准测试,它们的差异取决于所使用的下游应用。当要汇总和分析使用不同DNA提取方法的研究样品或数据时,应格外小心。
展开▼