DNA extraction from soils: old bias for new microbial diversity analysis methods

The impact of three different soil DNA extraction methods on bacterial diversity was evaluated using PCR-based 16S ribosomal DNA analysis. DNA extracted directly from three soils showing contrasting physicochemical properties was subjected to amplified ribosomal DNA restriction analysis and ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis (RISA). The obtained RISA patterns revealed clearly that both the phylotype abundance and the composition of the indigenous bacterial community are dependent on the DNA recovery method used. In addition, this effect was also shown in the context of an experimental study aiming to estimate the impact on soil biodiversity of the application of farmyard manure or sewage sludge onto a monoculture of maize for 15 years.     

直接从土壤中提取DNA的方法

研究微生物的多样性 ,即微生物的种类和数量的多少是评价土壤质量的重要指标。由于土壤微生物种类繁多 ,数量巨大 ,加上土壤中 99%的种类难以通过传统的平板分离技术来进行培养[1],人们必须借助其他技术来解决。近年发展的非培养技术 ,如ＢＩＯＬＯＧ微量板分析技术[2 ]、细胞壁磷脂酸分析技术[3]和分子生物学方法[4 - 6 ],克服了培养的环节 ,对微生物生态学研究产生极大的推动作用。其中分子生物学是应用最广、最有发展潜力的技术。它的主要步骤是通过直接提取土壤中的ＤＮＡ ,经纯化处理后 ,利用合适的引物扩增 1 6ＳｒＲＮＡ基因 ,通过分…     

Direct extraction of microbial community DNA from humified upland soils

This paper describes a protocol effective at extracting high yields of high-purity microbial community DNA from humified soils. DNA was extracted from soil by lysozyme, SDS and freeze–thaw lysis, precipitated and then subjected to a double caesium chloride density gradient centrifugation stage before concentrating and washing. Evaluation using three soils yielded up to 30 μg DNA g⁻¹ dry soil, with absorbance ratios at 260 : 230 nm and 260 : 280 nm of 1·6–2·0. The DNA extracted from the three soils was digested by four restriction enzymes and a 16S rDNA eubacterial product was amplified by PCR. These tests indicated that the DNA obtained by the protocol was sufficiently pure for molecular biological analysis.     

Methods for DNA extraction from various soils: a comparison

Seven methods for bacterial DNA extraction and purification from soil samples were compared. Holben's direct lysis method recovered significantly greater amounts of DNA than the other methods tested, while CsCl-ethidium bromide density gradient ultracentrifugation was better than gel filtration at removing humic acid from crude DNA isolated from soil. When both these methods were combined, 5·94 μg of DNA (A_260/280 ratio around 1·754) was yielded g⁻¹ oven-dried sandstone shale alluvial soil; similarly satisfactory yields were obtained from Taiwan clay, and sandstone shale and slate alluvial soil managed under different farming practices. DNA obtained by these methods was readily digested by Eco R I and Hind III. When soil samples were stored for 3 weeks at 4 °C, the fraction of high-molecular-weight DNA was reduced significantly. Thus, DNA extraction should be carried out as soon as possible after a soil sample has been collected from the field. When hyphae of Pythium aphanidermatum and Fusarium solani were subjected to the above lysis method, DNA could not be detected in the extract.     

DNA提取过程中混入的实验室空气微生物DNA定量

元基因组测序方法为微生物研究提供了有力的工具。但其中的DNA提取过程,会不可避免地混入实验室中的空气微生物。这些微生物DNA,是否会对一些极微量的元基因组检测(如皮肤样本等)结果造成影响,有多大影响,仍没有明确结论。本研究首先收集了实验室空气样品,用16S rRNA引物建立了基于qPCR的标准曲线,并检测了在开放环境下提取DNA过程中可掺杂的环境微生物DNA量。然后在开放环境下提取纯水DNA样品并进行元基因组分析,以确定掺杂环境微生物的种类。最后分别在生物安全柜和实验室开放环境下提取皮肤样本,并用鸟枪测序方法对样本的微生物组成进行分析,以评估掺杂环境微生物对元基因组检测结果的影响。结果显示,在实验室开放环境的DNA提取过程中,环境微生物的DNA残留可达28.9 pg,可达某些极微量样本DNA总量的30%。元基因组分析显示,样品中掺杂的环境微生物主要是痤疮杆菌Cutibacteriumacnes、大肠杆菌Escherichia coli等皮肤常见细菌。与洁净皮肤样本的信息相比,开放环境下提取掺杂了数十种环境微生物,并导致主要菌种的丰度大幅降低,从而影响结果的真实性。因此,微量样品的DNA...     

Method for rapid DNA extraction from bacterial communities of different soils

A method for indirect DNA extraction from various soils significantly differing in their physicochemical properties has been developed. The proposed method is based on cell desorption from soil particles using a Tris-EDTA (TE) buffer supplemented with polyvinylpolypyrrolydone (PVPP) and sodium dodecylsulfate (SDS). Methods for subsequent cell lysis and purification of DNA preparations based on alkaline lysis followed by chromatography on ion-exchange resins were described by us earlier. The purity of the DNA preparations obtained did not depend on the type of soil. It was shown that the DNA preparations can be used for the amplification of rather large fragments, e.g., sequences spanning the complete 16S rRNA gene.     

Rapid extraction of DNA from diverse soils by guanidine thiocyanate method

Molecular methods are being frequently used for the study of soil microbial communities as majority of naturally occurring microbial populations are non-culturable. In the present study, we describe a protocol of DNA extraction from diverse soils using a combination of heat, enzyme (lysozyme) and guanidine thiocyanate. The efficacy of the procedure was evaluated in terms of yield, purity and duration of extraction. The protocol was effective for neutral, acidic as well as alkaline soils (pH range 4.5-8.5). The extracted soil DNA was observed with negligible shearing on agarose gel and the time taken for restriction digestion was very less. Further, the DNA extracted was almost completely devoid of contaminants and pure enough which could be used for PCR amplification and Southern hybridization.     

Method for rapid DNA extraction from bacterial communities of different soils

A method for indirect DNA extraction from various soils significantly differing in their physicochemical properties has been developed. The proposed method is based on cell desorption from soil particles using a Tris-EDTA (TE) buffer supplemented with polyvinylpolypyrrolydone (PVPP) and sodium dodecylsulfate (SDS). Subsequent cell lysis and purification of DNA preparations methods based on alkaline lysis followed by chromatography on ion-exchange resins were described by us earlier. The purity of the DNA preparations obtained did not depend on the type of soil. It was shown that the DNA preparations can be used for the amplification of rather large fragments, e.g., sequences spanning the complete 16S rRNA gene.     

提取北方土壤真菌DNA的一种方法

由于土壤理化性质的复杂性和真菌细胞壁结构的特殊性,从土壤样品中提取真菌基因组DNA比较困难.中国北方土壤与其它地区土壤相比有其自身的特点,因此,有必要优化一种适合于北方土壤真菌DNA提取的方法.本实验向灭菌黑土中分别投加12种在系统分类上差别较大的真菌,以传统土壤总DNA提取方法及纯菌DNA提取方法为基础,分别与蜗牛酶,纤维素酶进行组合、优化,得到7种不同的土壤真菌基因组DNA提取方法.利用真菌28S rDNA通用引物U1/U2-GC PCR-DGGE分析方法分别考察了7种不同方法所提取土壤真菌基因组DNA的多样性和代表性.结果表明:1)液氮研磨,纤维素酶、蜗牛酶和溶菌酶(浓度分别为6 、3和1 mg·ml-1)37 ℃作用60 min,2% SDS于65 ℃裂解30 min;2)-65 ℃～65 ℃冻融3次,纤维素酶、蜗牛酶和溶菌酶(浓度分别为6、3和1 mg·ml-1)37 ℃作用180 min,2%SDS于65 ℃裂解30 min的组合具有较好的提取效果.利用后一种方法分别对3种理化性质差异较大的中国北方自然土壤样品真菌DNA进行提取并分析,表明所提取土壤基因组DNA真菌特异性PCR-DGGE图谱条带丰富,该方法可用于多种北方土壤真菌多样性研究.     

Direct extraction of DNA from soils for studies in microbial ecology

Molecular analyses for the study of soil microbial communities often depend on the extraction of DNA directly from soils. These extractions are by no means trivial, being complicated by humic substances that are inhibitory to PCR and restriction enzymes or being too highly colored for blot hybridization protocols. Many different published protocols exist, but none have been found to be suitable enough to be generally accepted as a standard. Most direct extraction protocols start with relatively harsh cell breakage steps such as bead-beating and freeze-thaw cycles, followed by the addition of detergents and high salt buffers and/or enzymic digestion with lysozyme and proteases. After typical organic extraction and alcohol precipitation, further purification is usually needed to remove inhibitory substances from the extract. The purification steps include size-exclusion chromatography, ion-exchange chromatography, silica gel spin columns, and cesium chloride gradients, among others. A direct DNA extraction protocol is described that has been shown to be effective in a wide variety of soil types. This protocol is experimentally compared to several published protocols.     

A rapid DNA extraction method for PCR amplification from wetland soils

Aims: We tested a method of rapid DNA extraction from wetland soil samples for use in the polymerase chain reaction. Methods and Results: The glass bead/calcium chloride/SDS method obtained in the present study was compared with the calcium chloride/SDS/enzymatic extraction method and the UltraClean? Soil DNA Isolation Kit. Rapid DNA extraction could be completed within about two hours without purification steps. Conclusions: This study succeeded in establishing a fast soil DNA extraction protocol that can be applied to various environmental sources that are rich in humic acid content. Significance and Impact of the Study: The method provides a technology with high‐quality DNA extraction from soils for testing the diversity of AOB and AOA.     

DNA extraction method affects microbial community profiles from soils and sediment

To evaluate whether different deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) extraction procedures can affect estimates of bacterial community composition, based on the 16S ribosomal ribonucleic acid gene denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) profiles, we compared four in situ lysis procedures using three soils and one marine sediment. Analysis of DGGE profiles, generated by polymerase chain reaction of purified DNA extracts, demonstrated that the choice of DNA extraction method significantly influenced the bacterial community profiles generated. This was reflected both in the number of bands or ribotypes detected from each sample and in subsequent principle coordinate analysis and unweighted-pair group method using arithmetic average analyses. The methods also differed significantly in their robustness, i.e. reproducibility across multiple analyses. Two methods, both based on bead beating, were demonstrated to be suitable for comparative studies of a range of soil and sediment types. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Comparisons of direct extraction methods of microbial DNA from different paddy soils

Molecular analyses for the study of soil microbial communities often depend on the direct extraction of DNA from soils. The present work compares the effectiveness of three different methods of extracting microbial DNA from seven different paddy soils. Comparison among different DNA extraction methods against different paddy soil samples revealed a marked variation in DNA yields from 3.18–20.17 μg DNA/g of dry soil. However, irrespective of the soil samples and extraction methods the DNA fragment size was >10 kb. Among the methods evaluated, method-C (chemical–enzymatic–mechanical) had better cell lysis efficiency and DNA yield. After purification of crude DNA by Purification Kit, A₂₆₀/A₂₃₀ and A₂₆₀/A₂₈₀ ratios of the DNA obtained by method-C reached up to 2.27 and 1.89, respectively, sustaining the efficacy of this technique in removing humic acid, protein and other contaminants. Results of the comprehensive evaluation of DNA extraction methods suggest that method-C is superior to other two methods (chemical–enzymatic and chemical–mechanical), and was the best choice for extraction of total DNA from soil samples. Since soil type and microbial community characteristics influence DNA recovery, this study provides guidance for choosing appropriate extraction and purification methods according to experimental goals.     

Comparison of two bacterial DNA extraction methods from non-polluted and polluted soils

DNA extraction from soil samples is a critical step for molecular biology analyses. The present study compared the efficiency of two DNA isolation methods from non-polluted and polluted soils with or without the presence of a plant. Both applied methods used chemical and physical lyses, but method 1 had an additional physical disruption. The main difference between these two methods was the humic acid purification technique as it was carried out during cell lysis for method 1 and after cell lysis for method 2. Samples were assessed on the basis of their yield and DNA purity as well as their bacterial quantity and diversity. Based on our results, method 1 proved to be more effective at removing protein and RNA, whereas method 2 proved to be more effective at removing humic acids. Although no differences were obtained in terms of the DNA yield, both the bacterial quantity and community structure were affected by the method used. Method 1 allowed for the recovery of more information than method 2, and polluted soil was more sensitive to the DNA extraction procedure. We recommend carefully selecting the DNA extraction method, especially when soil is disturbed.     

Quantification bias caused by plasmid DNA conformation in quantitative real-time PCR assay

Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) is the gold standard for the quantification of specific nucleic acid sequences. However, a serious concern has been revealed in a recent report: supercoiled plasmid standards cause significant over-estimation in qPCR quantification. In this study, we investigated the effect of plasmid DNA conformation on the quantification of DNA and the efficiency of qPCR. Our results suggest that plasmid DNA conformation has significant impact on the accuracy of absolute quantification by qPCR. DNA standard curves shifted significantly among plasmid standards with different DNA conformations. Moreover, the choice of DNA measurement method and plasmid DNA conformation may also contribute to the measurement error of DNA standard curves. Due to the multiple effects of plasmid DNA conformation on the accuracy of qPCR, efforts should be made to assure the highest consistency of plasmid standards for qPCR. Thus, we suggest that the conformation, preparation, quantification, purification, handling, and storage of standard plasmid DNA should be described and defined in the Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments (MIQE) to assure the reproducibility and accuracy of qPCR absolute quantification.     

Quantification of Bias Related to the Extraction of DNA Directly from Soils

In recent years, several protocols based on the extraction of nucleic acids directly from the soil matrix after lysis treatment have been developed for the detection of microorganisms in soil. Extraction efficiency has often been evaluated based on the recovery of a specific gene sequence from an organism inoculated into the soil. The aim of the present investigation was to improve the extraction, purification, and quantification of DNA derived from as large a portion of the soil microbial community as possible, with special emphasis placed on obtaining DNA from gram-positive bacteria, which form structures that are difficult to disrupt. Furthermore, we wanted to identify and minimize the biases related to each step in the procedure. Six soils, covering a range of pHs, clay contents, and organic matter contents, were studied. Lysis was carried out by soil grinding, sonication, thermal shocks, and chemical treatments. DNA was extracted from the indigenous microflora as well as from inoculated bacterial cells, spores, and hyphae, and the quality and quantity of the DNA were determined by gel electrophoresis and dot blot hybridization. Lysis efficiency was also estimated by microscopy and viable cell counts. Grinding increased the extracellular DNA yield compared with the yield obtained without any lysis treatment, but none of the subsequent treatments clearly increased the DNA yield. Phage λ DNA was inoculated into the soils to mimic the fate of extracellular DNA. No more than 6% of this DNA could be recovered from the different soils. The clay content strongly influenced the recovery of DNA. The adsorption of DNA to clay particles decreased when the soil was pretreated with RNA in order to saturate the adsorption sites. We also investigated different purification techniques and optimized the PCR methods in order to develop a protocol based on hybridization of the PCR products and quantification by phosphorimaging.     

Comparative analysis of environmental DNA extraction and purification methods from different humic acid-rich soils

AIM: To establish a rapid, improved soil environmental DNA extraction and purification protocol. METHODS AND RESULTS: Three different soil DNA isolation and four purification strategies were compared on different soil samples with variable rates of success. Bead beating extraction gave significantly higher DNA yields than microwave-based and liquid nitrogen grinding DNA extraction methods. The inclusion of soil washing prior to cell lysis decreased the amount of purification steps required. Although these soil types differed, polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (PVPP)-sepharose 2B column elution was sufficient for all three samples, yielding DNA pure enough for successful application in molecular studies. One soil sample retained 80% of the initial DNA after successful purification. CONCLUSIONS: Optimization of a purification protocol confirmed that only a combination of previously described methods proved sufficient in yielding pure environmental DNA from humic-rich soils. Total processing time for DNA extraction and subsequent purification from multiple samples was considerably more rapid than the previously described methods. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: This study developed a new optimized soil DNA extraction and purification protocol that is suitable for different environmental sources that are rich in humic acid content.     

Comparison of commercial DNA extraction kits for isolation and purification of bacterial and eukaryotic DNA from PAH-contaminated soils

Molecular characterization of the microbial populations of soils and sediments contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) is often a first step in assessing intrinsic biodegradation potential. However, soils are problematic for molecular analysis owing to the presence of organic matter, such as humic acids. Furthermore, the presence of contaminants, such as PAHs, can cause further challenges to DNA extraction, quantification, and amplification. The goal of our study was to compare the effectiveness of four commercial soil DNA extraction kits (UltraClean Soil DNA Isolation kit, PowerSoil DNA Isolation kit, PowerMax Soil DNA Isolation kit, and FastDNA SPIN kit) to extract pure, high-quality bacterial and eukaryotic DNA from PAH-contaminated soils. Six different contaminated soils were used to determine if there were any biases among the kits due to soil properties or level of contamination. Extracted DNA was used as a template for bacterial 16S rDNA and eukaryotic 18S rDNA amplifications, and PCR products were subsequently analyzed using denaturing gel gradient electrophoresis (DGGE). We found that the FastDNA SPIN kit provided significantly higher DNA yields for all soils; however, it also resulted in the highest levels of humic acid contamination. Soil texture and organic carbon content of the soil did not affect the DNA yield of any kit. Moreover, a liquid-liquid extraction of the DNA extracts found no residual PAHs, indicating that all kits were effective at removing contaminants in the extraction process. Although the PowerSoil DNA Isolation kit gave relatively low DNA yields, it provided the highest quality DNA based on successful amplification of both bacterial and eukaryotic DNA for all six soils. DGGE fingerprints among the kits were dramatically different for both bacterial and eukaryotic DNA. The PowerSoil DNA Isolation kit revealed multiple bands for each soil and provided the most consistent DGGE profiles among replicates for both bacterial and eukaryotic DNA.