↓ Skip to main content

The effect of DNA extraction methodology on gut microbiota research applications

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
30 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
197 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The effect of DNA extraction methodology on gut microbiota research applications
Published in
BMC Research Notes, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-2171-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Konstantinos Gerasimidis, Martin Bertz, Christopher Quince, Katja Brunner, Alanna Bruce, Emilie Combet, Szymon Calus, Nick Loman, Umer Zeeshan Ijaz

Abstract

The effect that traditional and modern DNA extraction methods have on applications to study the role of gut microbiota in health and disease is a topic of current interest. Genomic DNA was extracted from three faecal samples and one probiotic capsule using three popular methods; chaotropic (CHAO) method, phenol/chloroform (PHEC) extraction, proprietary kit (QIAG). The performance of each of these methods on DNA yield and quality, microbiota composition using quantitative PCR, deep sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene, and sequencing analysis pipeline was evaluated. The CHAO yielded the highest and the QIAG kit the lowest amount of double-stranded DNA, but the purity of isolated nucleic acids was better for the latter method. The CHAO method yielded a higher concentration of bacterial taxa per mass (g) of faeces. Sequencing coverage was higher in CHAO method but a higher proportion of the initial sequencing reads were retained for assignments to operational taxonomic unit (OTU) in the QIAG kit compared to the other methods. The QIAG kit appeared to have longer trimmed reads and shorter regions of worse quality than the other two methods. A distinct separation of α-diversity indices between different DNA extraction methods was not observed. When compositional dissimilarities between samples were explored, a strong separation was observed according to sample type. The effect of the extraction method was either marginal (Bray-Curtis distance) or none (unweighted Unifrac distance). Taxon membership and abundance in each sample was independent of the DNA extraction method used. We have benchmarked several DNA extraction methods commonly used in gut microbiota research and their differences depended on the downstream applications intended for use. Caution should be paid when the intention is to pool and analyse samples or data from studies which have used different DNA extraction methods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
Canada 2 1%
United States 2 1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Unknown 189 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 41 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 20%
Student > Master 34 17%
Student > Bachelor 15 8%
Lecturer 7 4%
Other 26 13%
Unknown 35 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 60 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 36 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 25 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 5%
Engineering 6 3%
Other 20 10%
Unknown 40 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 April 2021.
All research outputs
#1,365,475
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#155
of 4,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,426
of 381,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#1
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,524 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 381,508 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.