Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,880

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

DNA recovery from soils of diverse composition

Open access
Zhou, J, Bruns, M A, Tiedje, J M·1996·Applied and Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/aem.62.2.316-322.1996

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 2,880

Metadata

Authors
Zhou, J., Bruns, M. A., & Tiedje, J. M.
Venue
Applied and Environmental 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.