Dataset Information

Comparison of Meconium DNA Extraction Methods for Use in Microbiome Studies.

ABSTRACT: The establishment of human gut microbiota commences initially in utero. Meconium-the first fecal material passed after birth-can be used to study fetal gut contents; however, processing meconium samples for microbiome studies presents significant technical challenges. Meconium hosts a low biomass microbiome, is tar-like in texture and contains high concentrations of PCR inhibitors. This study aimed to evaluate four different DNA extraction methods to elucidate the most effective method for bacterial DNA recovery and sequencing analysis from first-pass meconium. Samples from five infants were collected and processed using the following extraction kits: (1) Qiagen QIAamp DNA Stool Mini (QS); (2) Qiagen QIAamp DNA Microbiome (QM); (3) MoBio PowerSoil (PS); (4) MoBio MagAttract PowerMicrobiome (PM). Additionally, Kit PM was employed with a double inhibitor removal treatment (IRT) step (PM2). Bacterial DNA recovery was assessed by qPCR. Any PCR inhibition in samples was measured by spiking DNA eluates with 0.1 ng of pure Streptococcus agalactiae (GBS) DNA followed by qPCR quantitation. Kit PM yielded the highest average total DNA yield (79.3 ng per gram of meconium). Samples extracted with kit PS had the highest detectable levels of 16S rRNA gene by qPCR. The ability of each kit to overcome PCR inhibition varied, with qPCR on GBS-spiked DNA from kits QS, QM, PS, and PM recovering 87.1, 91.0, 88.8, and 37.9% GBS DNA, respectively. Double IRT improved the performance of kit PM, increasing GBS recovery to 56.5%. However, once DNA yield was normalized to the level recovered with the other kits 100% of GBS DNA was detected, suggesting that levels of PCR inhibitors are related to DNA yield from kit PM. Ion Torrent 16S rRNA gene sequencing revealed a high level of inter-kit variation in meconium microbiome structure. In particular, kit QM showed a bias toward extracting Firmicute DNA, while the other kits extracted primarily Proteobacterial DNA. Choice of extraction kit greatly impacts on the ability to extract and detect bacterial DNA in meconium and on the microbiome community structure generated from these samples.

SUBMITTER: Stinson LF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5826226 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Meconium DNA Extraction Methods for Use in Microbiome Studies.

Stinson Lisa F LF Keelan Jeffrey A JA Payne Matthew S MS

Frontiers in microbiology 20180220

The establishment of human gut microbiota commences initially <i>in utero</i>. Meconium-the first fecal material passed after birth-can be used to study fetal gut contents; however, processing meconium samples for microbiome studies presents significant technical challenges. Meconium hosts a low biomass microbiome, is tar-like in texture and contains high concentrations of PCR inhibitors. This study aimed to evaluate four different DNA extraction methods to elucidate the most effective method fo ...[more]

PMID: 29515550

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The composition of the microbiome in human body sites plays an important role in health. The vaginal environment is colonized by several species of bacteria that have a major influence on reproductive health. The advancement of sequencing technologies has made the assessment of the composition of the microbiota possible through microbial DNA extraction and sequencing. Therefore, it is of a paramount importance to select a sensitive and reproducible DNA extraction method, that facilitates isolation of microbial DNA with a sufficient quantity and purity, from microbial species living in the vaginal environment. Here, we have evaluated four different DNA extraction protocols from self-collected vaginal swabs. Methods: Five healthy female volunteers were enrolled in the study. Each donor was asked to self-collect 4 samples using Copan ESwab. DNA was extracted using Qiagen DNeasy kit and three modified protocols of the MoBio PowerSoil kit ("DNeasy PowerSoil" after acquisition from Qiagen). DNA quantity and integrity was checked through Nanodrop and LabChip GX. DNA was further tested through quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) and 16S sequencing. Vaginal microbiota diversities were determined using MiSeq-Illumina high-throughput sequencing of bacterial 16S rDNA V1-V3 fingerprint. Sequencing data were analyzed using QIIME pipeline. Results: Qiagen DNeasy protocol resulted in the highest DNA yield as compared to the modified protocols of MoBio Powersoil kit. The size of the DNA extracted using each protocol was ~40 kb. Qiagen DNeasy protocol gave the highest Genomic Quality Score (average ± standard deviation: 4.24 ± 0.36), followed by the different MoBio Powersoil protocols. A substantial variability in microbial DNA abundance was found across the protocols. The vaginal microbiota of the healthy volunteers was dominated by Lactobacillus species. MoBio Powersoil kit provided a significantly higher alpha diversity as compared to the Qiagen DNeasy kit, while beta diversity measures did not reveal any significant cluster changes, except when the Bray-Curtis method was applied. Conclusion: We were able to isolate microbial DNA from the vaginal swabs. Qiagen DNeasy method gave the highest DNA yield and quality but was not optimal in detecting microbial diversity. The modified MoBio PowerSoil protocols showed higher microbial diversities as compared to the standard protocol.

Project description:Microbiome studies are becoming larger in size to detect the potentially small effect that environmental factors have on our gut microbiomes, or that the microbiome has on our health. Therefore, fast and reproducible DNA isolation methods are needed to handle thousands of fecal samples. We used the Chemagic 360 chemistry and Magnetic Separation Module I (MSMI) instrument to compare two sample preservatives and four different pre-treatment protocols to find an optimal method for DNA isolation from thousands of fecal samples. The pre-treatments included bead beating, sample handling in tube and plate format, and proteinase K incubation. The optimal method offers a sufficient yield of high-quality DNA without contamination. Three human fecal samples (adult, senior, and infant) with technical replicates were extracted. The extraction included negative controls (OMNIgeneGUT, DNA/RNA shield fluid, and Chemagic Lysis Buffer 1) to detect cross-contamination and ZymoBIOMICS Gut Microbiome Standard as a positive control to mimic the human gut microbiome and assess sensitivity of the extraction method. All samples were extracted using Chemagic DNA Stool 200 H96 kit (PerkinElmer, Finland). The samples were collected in two preservatives, OMNIgeneGUT and DNA/RNA shield fluid. DNA quantity was measured using Qubit-fluorometer, DNA purity and quality using gel electrophoresis, and taxonomic signatures with 16S rRNA gene-based sequencing with V3V4 and V4 regions. Bead beating increased bacterial diversity. The largest increase was detected in gram-positive genera Blautia, Bifidobacterium, and Ruminococcus. Preservatives showed minor differences in bacterial abundances. The profiles between the V3V4 and V4 regions differed considerably with lower diversity samples. Negative controls showed signs from genera abundant in fecal samples. Technical replicates of the Gut Standard and stool samples showed low variation. The selected isolation protocol included recommended steps from manufacturer as well as bead beating. Bead beating was found to be necessary to detect hard-to-lyse bacteria. The protocol was reproducible in terms of DNA yield among different stool replicates and the ZymoBIOMICS Gut Microbiome Standard. The MSM1 instrument and pre-treatment in a 96-format offered the possibility of automation and handling of large sample collections. Both preservatives were feasible in terms of sample handling and had low variation in taxonomic signatures. The 16S rRNA target region had a high impact on the composition of the bacterial profile.ImportanceNext-generation sequencing (NGS) is a widely used method for determining the composition of the gut microbiota. Due to the differences in the gut microbiota composition between individuals, microbiome studies have expanded into large population studies to maximize detection of small effects on microbe-host interactions. Thus, the demand for a rapid and reliable microbial profiling is continuously increasing, making the optimization of high-throughput 96-format DNA extraction integral for NGS-based downstream applications. However, experimental protocols are prone to bias and errors from sample collection and storage, to DNA extraction, primer selection and sequencing, and bioinformatics analyses. Methodological bias can contribute to differences in microbiome profiles, causing variability across studies and laboratories using different protocols. To improve consistency and confidence of the measurements, the standardization of microbiome analysis methods has been recognized in many fields.

Project description:When studying the microbiome using next-generation sequencing, the DNA extraction method, sequencing procedures, and bioinformatic processing are crucial to obtain reliable data. Method choice has been demonstrated to strongly affect the final biological interpretation. We assessed the performance of three DNA extraction methods and two bioinformatic pipelines for bacterial microbiota profiling through 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing, using positive and negative controls for DNA extraction and sequencing and eight different types of high- or low-biomass samples. Performance was evaluated based on quality control passing, DNA yield, richness, diversity, and compositional profiles. All DNA extraction methods retrieved the theoretical relative bacterial abundance with a maximum 3-fold change, although differences were seen between methods, and library preparation and sequencing induced little variation. Bioinformatic pipelines showed different results for observed richness, but diversity and compositional profiles were comparable. DNA extraction methods were successful for feces and oral swabs, and variation induced by DNA extraction methods was lower than intersubject (biological) variation. For low-biomass samples, a mixture of genera present in negative controls and sample-specific genera, possibly representing biological signal, were observed. We conclude that the tested bioinformatic pipelines perform equally, with pipeline-specific advantages and disadvantages. Two out of three extraction methods performed equally well, while one method was less accurate regarding retrieval of compositional profiles. Lastly, we again demonstrate the importance of including negative controls when analyzing low-bacterial-biomass samples.IMPORTANCE Method choice throughout the workflow of a microbiome study, from sample collection to DNA extraction and sequencing procedures, can greatly affect results. This study evaluated three different DNA extraction methods and two bioinformatic pipelines by including positive and negative controls and various biological specimens. By identifying an optimal combination of DNA extraction method and bioinformatic pipeline use, we hope to contribute to increased methodological consistency in microbiota studies. Our methods were applied not only to commonly studied samples for microbiota analysis, e.g., feces, but also to more rarely studied, low-biomass samples. Microbiota composition profiles of low-biomass samples (e.g., urine and tumor biopsy specimens) were not always distinguishable from negative controls, or showed partial overlap, confirming the importance of including negative controls in microbiota studies, especially when low bacterial biomass is expected.

Project description:ObjectivesGood-quality and sufficient DNA is essential for diagnostics and vaccine development. We aimed to compare six DNA extraction techniques applied to Loa loa microfilariae in order to evaluate the purity and integrity of extracts in terms of quality and quantity.MethodsThe microfilariae were purified via a Percoll gradient procedure with blood from hyper-microfilaremic individuals (> 30,000 microfilaria [mf]/ml). DNA extraction was carried out in duplicate at a rate of 350,000 mf/tube for each technique: phenol/chloroform, commercial Qiagen kit, salting out, Tris-EDTA, methanol, and cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB). The integrity, purity, concentration, and quality of the DNA extracts were successively verified by agarose gel electrophoresis, spectrophotometry (A260/A280 and A260/A230 wavelength ratio), Qubit fluorometry, and endonuclease and polymerase activity. The six techniques were compared on the basis of the following parameters: concentration, purity, efficiency, effectiveness, integrity, safety of the technique, as well as cost and duration of the protocol.ResultsThe ratios of the optical densities of the extracts A260/A280 and A260/A230 were, respectively: phenol/chloroform (1.82; 1.11), Qiagen (1.93; 1.36), salting-out (1.9; 2.04), Tris-EDTA (1.99; 1.183), methanol (2.126; 1.343), and CTAB (2.01; 2.426). The DNA yield was: phenol/chloroform (3.920 μg), Qiagen (10.280 μg), salting-out (10.390 μg), Tris-EDTA (0.5528 μg), methanol (0.1036 μg), and CTAB (1.115 μg). Endonuclease and polymerase activity was demonstrated by digestion of DNA and through amplicons obtained via polymerase chain reaction assays with phenol/chloroform, Qiagen, and salting-out extracts.ConclusionThe phenol/chloroform, Qiagen, and salting-out DNA extracts were all of good quality. Salting out had the best yield followed by Qiagen and then phenol/chloroform. Endonuclease and polymerase activity was effective in all three extracts despite the presence of some contaminants. These methods are therefore suitable for the extraction of DNA from Loa loa microfilariae. Tris-EDTA and methanol did not show adequate sensitivity, while CTAB was found to be unsuitable.

Project description:Background: Integrated microbiome and metabolomics analyses hold the potential to reveal interactions between host and microbiota in relation to disease risks. However, there are few studies evaluating how field methods influence fecal microbiome characterization and metabolomics profiling. Methods: Five fecal collection methods [immediate freezing at -20°C without preservative, OMNIgene GUT, 95% ethanol, RNAlater, and Flinders Technology Associates (FTA) cards] were used to collect 40 fecal samples from eight healthy volunteers. We performed gut microbiota 16S rRNA sequencing, untargeted metabolomics profiling, and targeted metabolomics focusing on short chained fatty acids (SCFAs). Metrics included α-diversity and β-diversity as well as distributions of predominant phyla. To evaluate the concordance with the "gold standard" immediate freezing, the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for alternate fecal collection systems were calculated. Correlations between SCFAs and gut microbiota were also examined. Results: The FTA cards had the highest ICCs compared to the immediate freezing method for α-diversity indices (ICCs = 0.96, 0.96, 0.76 for Shannon index, Simpson's Index, Chao-1 Index, respectively), followed by OMNIgene GUT, RNAlater, and 95% ethanol. High ICCs (all >0.88) were observed for all methods for the β-diversity metric. For untargeted metabolomics, in comparison to immediate freezing which detected 621 metabolites at ≥75% detectability level, 95% ethanol showed the largest overlapping set of metabolites (n = 430; 69.2%), followed by FTA cards (n = 330; 53.1%) and OMNIgene GUT (n = 213; 34.3%). Both OMNIgene GUT (ICCs = 0.82, 0.93, 0.64) and FTA cards (ICCs = 0.87, 0.85, 0.54) had acceptable ICCs for the top three predominant SCFAs (butyric acid, propionic acid and acetic acid). Nominally significant correlations between bacterial genera and SCFAs (P < 0.05) were observed in fecal samples collected by different methods. Of note, a high correlation between the genus Blautia (known butyrate producer) and butyric acid was observed for both immediate freezing (r = 0.83) and FTA cards (r = 0.74). Conclusions: Four alternative fecal collection methods are generally comparable with immediate freezing, but there are differences in certain measures of the gut microbiome and fecal metabolome across methods. Choice of method depends on the research interests, simplicity of fecal collection procedures and ease of transportation to the lab, especially for large epidemiological studies.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Meconium DNA Extraction Methods for Use in Microbiome Studies.

Publications

Comparison of Meconium DNA Extraction Methods for Use in Microbiome Studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets