The DOI matches its Crossref record.
PCR-SSCP comparison of 16S rDNA sequence diversity in soil DNA obtained using different isolation and purification methods
Open accessAbstract
This study compared different methods of direct DNA extraction and purification from a silt loam soil and investigated the relationship between DNA quantity and sequence diversity. Five extraction methods and four purification techniques were investigated. Quantities of DNA extracted were between 3.4+/-0.55 and 54.3+/-8.18 &mgr;g g(-1) (dry wt) of soil with OD(260)/OD(230) purity ratios between 0.80 and 1.15. Analysis of sequence diversity in all extracts was conducted using PCR-single strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP). Profiles generated using universal 16S rDNA primers (Com1/Com2) were found to be identical when used to amplify 16S rDNA extracted directly from soil. The genus Pseudomonas was targeted in order to reduce profile complexity, which was apparent when using universal 16S rDNA primers, and which hindered direct comparison of sequence diversity. A Pseudomonas culture library and non-cultured Pseudomonas 16S rDNA genes were used to provide a background count of Pseudomonas operational taxonomic units present in the soil. Cloning and sequencing of amplicons generated using a Pseudomonas-specific (Ps-for) and a universal 16S rDNA (Com2) primer, coupled with nested amplification (Com1/Com2 amplification from Ps-for/Ps-rev amplicons), used in conjunction with SSCP, revealed that environmental contaminants co-extracted with DNA, such as humic acid, significantly reduced primer specificity. SSCP was sensitive enough to reveal template bias in different primer sets. PCR-restriction fragment length-SSCP of Pseudomonas 16S rDNA amplified from soil-extracted DNA revealed distinct differences in sequence representation between extraction methods and showed that greater DNA yield is not synonymous with higher sequence diversity. We, therefore, suggest that DNA extractions from soil should be evaluated not only in terms of quantity and purity, but also in terms of the sequence diversity present. SSCP proved to be a valuable tool for the assessment of the methodologies commonly used in PCR-mediated microbial ecology studies.
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
Cited by
Daniel, R. (2005) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro1160 · Cited by 862
Metadata
- Authors
- Stach, J.
- Venue
- FEMS Microbiology Ecology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2001-07
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 2-3
- Pages
- 139-151
- ISSN
- 0168-6496 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1965937322
- Cited by
- 212
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: PCR-SSCP comparison of 16S rDNA sequence diversity in soil DNA obtained using different isolation and purification methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0168-6496(01)00130-1
- The paper
- Stach, J. (2001). PCR-SSCP comparison of 16S rDNA sequence diversity in soil DNA obtained using different isolation and purification methods. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-6496(01)00130-1
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.