ArticlePloS one2026
Cost-effective DNA extraction method optimized for high yield and long fragments from coastal sediments.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.