ArticleBMC research notes2023
Comparison of four DNA extraction methods for 16s rRNA microbiota profiling of human faecal samples.
Article in BMC research notes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Basic Microbiome Analysis: Analytical Steps from Sampling to Sequencing.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- The Role of Gut Microbiota Dysbiosis in Erectile Dysfunction: From Pathophysiology to Treatment Strategies.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Effects of dietary fiber on Chinese children with functional constipation and targeted modification of gut microbiota and related metabolites.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Microbiome dysbiosis and endometriosis: a systematic scoping review of current literature and knowledge gaps.Human reproduction open · 2025Review
- Metrological evaluation of DNA extraction method effects on the bacterial microbiome and resistome in sputum.mSystems · 2024Article
- Changes in the Gastrointestinal Microbiota Induced by Proton Pump Inhibitors-A Review of Findings from Experimental Trials.Microorganisms · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveGrowth in large population-based studies assessing contributions of the gut microbiota to health and disease requires high-throughput sample processing and analysis methods. This study assessed the impact that modifications to a commercially available magnetic bead based, semi-automated DNA extraction kit had on determination of microbial composition, relative to an established in-house method involving a combination of mechanical and chemical lysis. DNA was extracted from faecal samples from healthy adults (n = 12; 34-69 years), microbial composition was determined by V3-V4 16s rRNA sequencing and compared between extraction methods.
resultsDiversity metrics did not differ between extraction methods. Differences in the relative abundance of key phyla, including a significantly lower abundance of the Firmicutes (p = 0.004) and higher relative abundance of the Bacteroidetes (p = 0.005) and Proteobacteria (p = 0.008) phyla were noted where the DNA extraction did not include additional chemical and mechanical lysis. Principal coordinate analysis of family and genera level data also suggested a potential for sample pre-processing to impact microbial composition. Observations of the potential for skewed microbial composition profiles from samples prepared using a semi-automated DNA extraction kit without additional sample pre-processing highlights a need for consideration of standardisation of methodological approaches to increase the comparability of microbial compositional data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.