Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35744736›Full record

ArticleMicroorganisms2022

The Effects of DNA Extraction Kits and Primers on Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic Microbial Community in Freshwater Sediments.

Zihan Shi, Qiaoyi Kong, Xinghao Li, Wenxin Xu, Chengzhi Mao, Yunfeng Wang, Weibo Song, Jie Huang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microorganisms, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Quantitative metagenomics using a portable protocol.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Investigation of Parasitic Infection in Crocodile Lizards (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Zihan ShiInstitute of Evolution & Marine Biodiversity, College of Fisheries, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266003, China.
Qiaoyi KongDonghu Experimental Station of Lake Ecosystems, Key Laboratory of Aquatic Biodiversity and Conservation of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430072, China.
Xinghao LiKey Laboratory of Regional Development and Environmental Response, Hubei Engineering Research Center for Rural Drinking Water Security, Hubei University, Wuhan 430062, China.
Wenxin XuDonghu Experimental Station of Lake Ecosystems, Key Laboratory of Aquatic Biodiversity and Conservation of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430072, China.
Chengzhi MaoDonghu Experimental Station of Lake Ecosystems, Key Laboratory of Aquatic Biodiversity and Conservation of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430072, China.
Yunfeng WangInstitute of Evolution & Marine Biodiversity, College of Fisheries, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266003, China.
Weibo SongInstitute of Evolution & Marine Biodiversity, College of Fisheries, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266003, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4189-6141
Jie HuangDonghu Experimental Station of Lake Ecosystems, Key Laboratory of Aquatic Biodiversity and Conservation of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430072, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1739-1856
Chinese Academy of Sciences · CNHubei University · CNOcean University of China · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 31801984, 32030015the National Key Research and Development Program of China 2018YFD0900701Youth Innovation Promotion Association of the Chinese Academy of Sciences 2019333
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA based sequencing technology has revolutionized the field of microbial ecology and environmental studies. However, biases can be introduced at all experimental steps and, thus, affect the interpretation of microbial community. So far, previous studies on the biases introduced from the key steps of DNA extraction and primer sets mainly focused on the bacterial communities in soil or sediment samples, while little is known about the effect on the eukaryotic microbial communities. Here, we studied the effects of three different DNA extraction kits on both prokaryotic and micro-eukaryotic communities by 16S and 18S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing, and further disentangled the influence of primer choice on the micro-eukaryotic communities. Our results showed that the FastDNA SPIN Kit for Soil and DNeasy PowerSoil Kit produced much higher DNA yield with good reproducibility, and observed more eukaryotic OTUs compared to the MinkaGene DNA extraction kit, but all three kits exhibited comparable ability in recovering bacterial alpha diversity. Of the two primer sets, both targeting the V4 region of the 18S rRNA gene, the TAR primer set detected higher number of unique OTUs than the EK primer set, while the EK primer set resulted in longer amplicons and better reproducibility between replicates. Based on our findings, we recommend using the DNeasy PowerSoil Kit with the EK primer set to capture the abundant micro-eukaryotic taxa from freshwater sediment samples. If a more complete picture of the eukaryotic microbial community is desired, the TAR primer set in combination with the FastDNA SPIN Kit is more efficient in this study.

Indexed as

DNA extractionfreshwater sedimentmicrobial communityprimer

Identifiers

PMID35744736
PMCPMC9230960
OpenAlexW4282969417

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.