Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41734162›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Cost-effective DNA extraction method optimized for high yield and long fragments from coastal sediments.

Leopold Matthys, Eléonord Mayissah Moungues, Anaëlle Genève, Virginie Sanial, Benjamin Misson, Elisabeth Navarro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Leopold MatthysUniversité de Toulon, Aix Marseille Univ., CNRS, IRD, MIO, Toulon, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-6004-1703
Eléonord Mayissah MounguesUniversité de Toulon, Aix Marseille Univ., CNRS, IRD, MIO, Toulon, France.
Anaëlle GenèveUniversité de Toulon, Aix Marseille Univ., CNRS, IRD, MIO, Toulon, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-3877-1779
Virginie SanialUniversité de Toulon, Aix Marseille Univ., CNRS, IRD, MIO, Toulon, France.
Benjamin MissonUniversité de Toulon, Aix Marseille Univ., CNRS, IRD, MIO, Toulon, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4107-0916
Elisabeth NavarroUniversité de Toulon, Aix Marseille Univ., CNRS, IRD, MIO, Toulon, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0013-5699

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Efficient DNA extraction from coastal sediments is a critical step for studying microbial communities, especially when targeting high-molecular-weight DNA for long-read sequencing. Here, we compare a cost-effective laboratory-made (LM) extraction method with two widely used commercial kits: Qiagen DNEasy™ PowerSoil™ Pro (PSP) and PowerMax™ Soil (PM). In sandy, low-organic-matter sediments, the LM method consistently produced higher DNA yields - up to 13 times more than the commercial kits - and longer DNA fragments (up to 4-fold), likely due to its enzymatic lysis approach. It was also the only method that successfully amplified the 18S rRNA gene in sufficient quantity to enable downstream sequencing in certain samples. While prokaryotic diversity metrics were largely similar across methods, we observed differences in eukaryotic richness that were likely influenced by the amount of sediment processed. This demonstrates the higher importance of sample amount when assessing microeukaryotic diversity. Despite these differences, the LM method gave reproducible results and recovered taxa that were less frequently detected by commercial kits. In terms of cost, the LM method is significantly cheaper per sample than commercial alternatives, despite a higher starting cost. Although it requires more hands-on time, this trade-off may be worthwhile for large-scale studies and developing countries. Overall, the LM method is a robust and economical option, particularly suited for sandy or low-biomass sediments, and for studies requiring high-quality DNA. These results underline the importance of choosing and validating extraction protocols based on both the sediment type and the study's goals.

Indexed as

DNAGeologic SedimentsCost-Benefit AnalysisRNA, Ribosomal, 18SDNARNA, Ribosomal, 18S

Identifiers

PMID41734162
PMCPMC12931794

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.