The DOI matches its Crossref record.
DNA recovery from soils of diverse composition
Open accessAbstract
A simple, rapid method for bacterial lysis and direct extraction of DNA from soils with minimal shearing was developed to address the risk of chimera formation from small template DNA during subsequent PCR. The method was based on lysis with a high-salt extraction buffer (1.5 M NaCl) and extended heating (2 to 3 h) of the soil suspension in the presence of sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide, and proteinase K. The extraction method required 6 h and was tested on eight soils differing in organic carbon, clay content, and pH, including ones from which DNA extraction is difficult. The DNA fragment size in crude extracts from all soils was > 23 kb. Preliminary trials indicated that DNA recovery from two soils seeded with gram-negative bacteria was 92 to 99%. When the method was tested on all eight unseeded soils, microscopic examination of indigenous bacteria in soil pellets before and after extraction showed variable cell lysis efficiency (26 to 92%). Crude DNA yields from the eight soils ranged from 2.5 to 26.9 micrograms of DNA g-1, and these were positively correlated with the organic carbon content in the soil (r = 0.73). DNA yields from gram-positive bacteria from pure cultures were two to six times higher when the high-salt-SDS-heat method was combined with mortar-and-pestle grinding and freeze-thawing, and most DNA recovered was of high molecular weight. Four methods for purifying crude DNA were also evaluated for percent recovery, fragment size, speed, enzyme restriction, PCR amplification, and DNA-DNA hybridization. In general, all methods produced DNA pure enough for PCR amplification. Since soil type and microbial community characteristics will influence DNA recovery, this study provides guidance for choosing appropriate extraction and purification methods on the basis of experimental goals.
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
Klindworth, A., Pruesse, E., Schweer, T., Peplies, J., Quast, C., Horn, M., & Glöckner, F. O. (2013) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gks808 · Cited by 8,850
Single-cell genome sequencing: current state of the science
Gawad, C., Koh, W., & Quake, S. R. (2016) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg.2015.16 · Cited by 1,334
Using ecological diversity measures with bacterial communities
Hill, T. C. J., Walsh, K. A., Harris, J. A., & Moffett, B. F. (2003) · FEMS Microbiology Ecology · doi:10.1016/s0168-6496(02)00449-x · Cited by 1,020
Daniel, R. (2005) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro1160 · Cited by 862
Zhou, J., He, Z., Yang, Y., Deng, Y., Tringe, S. G., & Alvarez-Cohen, L. (2015) · mBio · doi:10.1128/mbio.02288-14 · Cited by 474
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhou, J., Bruns, M. A., & Tiedje, J. M.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1996-02
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 316-322
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W2159869703
- Cited by
- 2,880
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 32.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: DNA recovery from soils of diverse composition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.62.2.316-322.1996
- The paper
- Zhou, J., Bruns, M. A., & Tiedje, J. M. (1996). DNA recovery from soils of diverse composition. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.62.2.316-322.1996
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.