Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37568179›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2023

Comparison of four DNA extraction methods for 16s rRNA microbiota profiling of human faecal samples.

James Sinclair, Nicholas P West, Amanda J Cox

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

James Sinclair *Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD, 4215, Australia.
Nicholas P WestMenzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD, 4215, Australia.
Amanda J Cox *Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD, 4215, Australia. a.cox@griffith.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3684-0952
Griffith University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeMicrobiotaAdultDNADNA, BacterialFecesHumansRNA, Ribosomal, 16SDNADNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16S16s rRNADNA extractionFaecal samplesGut microbiota

Identifiers

PMID37568179
PMCPMC10422837
OpenAlexW4385759569

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.