Suppr超能文献

三种用于提取土壤原生生物DNA的DNA提取方法的比较

Comparison of three DNA extraction methods for recovery of soil protist DNA.

作者信息

Santos Susana S, Nielsen Tue Kjærgaard, Hansen Lars H, Winding Anne

机构信息

Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Frederiksborgvej 399, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark.

Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Frederiksborgvej 399, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark.

出版信息

J Microbiol Methods. 2015 Aug;115:13-9. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2015.05.011. Epub 2015 May 9.

Abstract

The use of molecular methods to investigate protist communities in soil is in rapid development this decade. Molecular analysis of soil protist communities is usually dependant on direct genomic DNA extraction from soil and inefficient or differential DNA extraction of protist DNA can lead to bias in downstream community analysis. Three commonly used soil DNA extraction methods have been tested on soil samples from three European Long-Term Observatories (LTOs) with different land-use and three protist cultures belonging to different phylogenetic groups in different growth stages. The methods tested were: ISOm-11063 (a version of the ISO-11063 method modified to include a FastPrep ®-24 mechanical lysis step), GnS-GII (developed by the GenoSol platform to extract soil DNA in large-scale soil surveys) and a commercial DNA extraction kit - Power Lyzer™ PowerSoil® DNA Isolation Kit (MoBio). DNA yield and quality were evaluated along with DNA suitability for amplification of 18S rDNA fragments by PCR. On soil samples, ISOm-11063 yields significantly higher DNA for two of the three soil samples, however, MoBio extraction favors DNA quality. This method was also more effective to recover copies of 18S rDNA numbers from all soil types. In addition and despite the lower yields, higher DNA quality was observed with DNA extracted from protist cultures with the MoBio method. Likewise, a bead-beating step shows to be a good solution for DNA extraction of soil protists, since the recovery of DNA from protist cultures and from the different soil samples with the ISOm method proved to be efficient in recovering PCR-amplifiable DNA. This study showed that soil DNA extraction methods provide biased results towards the cyst stages of protist organism.

摘要

近十年来,利用分子方法研究土壤中的原生生物群落发展迅速。土壤原生生物群落的分子分析通常依赖于从土壤中直接提取基因组DNA,而原生生物DNA提取效率低下或存在差异可能会导致下游群落分析出现偏差。对来自三个欧洲长期观测站(LTO)、具有不同土地利用类型的土壤样本,以及处于不同生长阶段、属于不同系统发育组的三种原生生物培养物,测试了三种常用的土壤DNA提取方法。所测试的方法包括:ISOm-11063(ISO-11063方法的一个版本,经过修改,包括FastPrep®-24机械裂解步骤)、GnS-GII(由GenoSol平台开发,用于大规模土壤调查中的土壤DNA提取)和一种商业DNA提取试剂盒——Power Lyzer™ PowerSoil® DNA分离试剂盒(MoBio)。评估了DNA产量和质量,以及DNA通过PCR扩增18S rDNA片段的适用性。对于土壤样本,ISOm-11063在三个土壤样本中的两个样本中产生了显著更高的DNA产量,然而,MoBio提取方法更有利于DNA质量。该方法在从所有土壤类型中回收18S rDNA拷贝数方面也更有效。此外,尽管产量较低,但用MoBio方法从原生生物培养物中提取的DNA质量更高。同样,珠磨步骤被证明是土壤原生生物DNA提取的一个好方法,因为用ISOm方法从原生生物培养物和不同土壤样本中回收DNA被证明在回收可PCR扩增的DNA方面是有效的。这项研究表明,土壤DNA提取方法对原生生物的孢囊阶段会产生有偏差的结果。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验