The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Biases during DNA extraction of activated sludge samples revealed by high throughput sequencing
Open accessAbstract
Standardization of DNA extraction is a fundamental issue of fidelity and comparability in investigations of environmental microbial communities. Commercial kits for soil or feces are often adopted for studies of activated sludge because of a lack of specific kits, but they have never been evaluated regarding their effectiveness and potential biases based on high throughput sequencing. In this study, seven common DNA extraction kits were evaluated, based on not only yield/purity but also sequencing results, using two activated sludge samples (two sub-samples each, i.e. ethanol-fixed and fresh, as-is). The results indicate that the bead-beating step is necessary for DNA extraction from activated sludge. The two kits without the bead-beating step yielded very low amounts of DNA, and the least abundant operational taxonomic units (OTUs), and significantly underestimated the Gram-positive Actinobacteria, Nitrospirae, Chloroflexi, and Alphaproteobacteria and overestimated Gammaproteobacteria, Deltaproteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, and the rare phyla whose cell walls might have been readily broken. Among the other five kits, FastDNA(@) SPIN Kit for Soil extracted the most and the purest DNA. Although the number of total OTUs obtained using this kit was not the highest, the abundant OTUs and abundance of Actinobacteria demonstrated its efficiency. The three MoBio kits and one ZR kit produced fair results, but had a relatively low DNA yield and/or less Actinobacteria-related sequences. Moreover, the 50 % ethanol fixation increased the DNA yield, but did not change the sequenced microbial community in a significant way. Based on the present study, the FastDNA SPIN kit for Soil is recommended for DNA extraction of activated sludge samples. More importantly, the selection of the DNA extraction kit must be done carefully if the samples contain dominant lysing-resistant groups, such as Actinobacteria and Nitrospirae.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Involvement of Cell-to-Cell Signals in the Development of a Bacterial Biofilm
Davies, D. G., Parsek, M. R., Pearson, J. P., Iglewski, B. H., Costerton, J. W., & Greenberg, E. P. (1998) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.280.5361.295 · Cited by 3,396
Cited by
The Madness of Microbiome: Attempting To Find Consensus “Best Practice” for 16S Microbiome Studies
Pollock, J., Glendinning, L., Wisedchanwet, T., & Watson, M. (2018) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.02627-17 · Cited by 575
Albertsen, M., Karst, S. M., Ziegler, A. S., Kirkegaard, R. H., & Nielsen, P. H. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132783 · Cited by 527
Yang, Y., Li, B., Ju, F., & Zhang, T. (2013) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es4017365 · Cited by 360
Self-citationDNA Qualification Workflow for Next Generation Sequencing of Histopathological Samples
Simbolo, M., Gottardi, M., Corbo, V., Fassan, M., Mafficini, A., Malpeli, G., Lawlor, R. T., & Scarpa, A. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062692 · Cited by 282
Wesolowska-Andersen, A., Bahl, M. I., Carvalho, V., Kristiansen, K., Sicheritz-Pontén, T., Gupta, R., & Licht, T. R. (2014) · Microbiome · doi:10.1186/2049-2618-2-19 · Cited by 277
Metadata
- Authors
- Guo, F., & Zhang, T.
- Venue
- Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
- Published
- 2012-07-04
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 4607-4616
- ISSN
- 0175-7598 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-0614
- OpenAlex
- W2079397498
- Cited by
- 174
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Biases during DNA extraction of activated sludge samples revealed by high throughput sequencing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00253-012-4244-4
- The paper
- Guo, F., & Zhang, T. (2013). Biases during DNA extraction of activated sludge samples revealed by high throughput sequencing. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-012-4244-4
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.