Logotipo do repositório
 

Publicação:
Comparison of two DNA extraction methods widely used in aquatic microbial ecology

dc.contributor.authorMateus-Barros, Erick
dc.contributor.authorMeneghine, Aylan K.
dc.contributor.authorBagatini, Inessa Lacativa
dc.contributor.authorFernandes, Camila C. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorKishi, Luciano T. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorVieira, Armando A.H.
dc.contributor.authorSarmento, Hugo
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCar)
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-06T16:17:35Z
dc.date.available2019-10-06T16:17:35Z
dc.date.issued2019-04-01
dc.description.abstractIn recent years, the rapid advances of culture-independent methods and new molecular tools have revolutionized our understanding of microbial biodiversity and ecological functions. DNA extraction from microbial communities is a critical step in this process and several methods have been proposed and used, but the influence of the extraction method on the outcome and ultimately on ecological inferences from the results is not yet precisely determined. Here, we compared two of the most commonly used extraction methods in aquatic microbial ecology, and investigated whether the two methods yielded comparable results for community ecology analyses. We extracted DNA from 15 different shallow lakes with phenol:chloroform, a classical and widely used extraction method, and with the PowerSoil DNA isolation Kit, often suggested as the standard DNA extraction method, with some adaptations for aquatic environments. We found that although only 5% of all OTUs showed significant differences in pairwise comparisons (using the 15 lakes as replicates), these OTUs accounted for >35% (on average) of the relative abundance. Diversity and richness did not differ significantly between the two extraction methods, but the beta-dispersion of the communities indicated that the organic extraction yielded more homogeneous communities, while the kit extraction generated variability. Consequently, we conclude that despite the small number of OTUs with significant differences, their impact on the community composition obtained was not negligible, and therefore the results from these two extraction methods were not comparable.en
dc.description.affiliationUniversidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCar) Department of Hydrobiology Laboratory of Microbial Processes and Biodiversity
dc.description.affiliationPost Graduate Program in Ecology and Natural Resources (PPGERN) UFSCar
dc.description.affiliationUFSCar Department of Botany Laboratory of Phycology
dc.description.affiliationUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias Departamento de Tecnologia Laboratório de Bioquímica de Microrganismos e Plantas – LBMP
dc.description.affiliationUNESP Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias Departamento de Tecnologia Laboratório Multiusuário Centralizado para Sequenciamento de DNA em Larga Escala e Análise de Expressão Gênica – LMSeq
dc.description.affiliationUnespUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias Departamento de Tecnologia Laboratório de Bioquímica de Microrganismos e Plantas – LBMP
dc.description.affiliationUnespUNESP Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias Departamento de Tecnologia Laboratório Multiusuário Centralizado para Sequenciamento de DNA em Larga Escala e Análise de Expressão Gênica – LMSeq
dc.description.sponsorshipCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)
dc.description.sponsorshipUniversidade Estadual Paulista
dc.description.sponsorshipFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
dc.description.sponsorshipConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)
dc.description.sponsorshipIdUniversidade Estadual Paulista: 2009/53984-2
dc.description.sponsorshipIdFAPESP: 2011/50054-4
dc.description.sponsorshipIdFAPESP: 2013/18083-0
dc.description.sponsorshipIdFAPESP: 2014/14139-3
dc.description.sponsorshipIdUniversidade Estadual Paulista: 2016/07679-7
dc.description.sponsorshipIdCNPq: 309514/2017-7
dc.format.extent12-17
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2019.02.005
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Microbiological Methods, v. 159, p. 12-17.
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.mimet.2019.02.005
dc.identifier.issn1872-8359
dc.identifier.issn0167-7012
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85061643788
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/188735
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Microbiological Methods
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso aberto
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectAquatic microbial ecology
dc.subjectHigh-throughput sequencing
dc.subjectNext-generation sequencing
dc.subjectPhenol:chloroform extraction
dc.subjectPowerSoil extraction kit
dc.titleComparison of two DNA extraction methods widely used in aquatic microbial ecologyen
dc.typeArtigo
dspace.entity.typePublication
unesp.author.orcid0000-0001-5220-7992[7]
unesp.departmentTecnologia - FCAVpt

Arquivos