The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evaluation and Optimization of DNA Extraction and Purification Procedures for Soil and Sediment Samples
Open accessAbstract
We compared and statistically evaluated the effectiveness of nine DNA extraction procedures by using frozen and dried samples of two silt loam soils and a silt loam wetland sediment with different organic matter contents. The effects of different chemical extractants (sodium dodecyl sulfate [SDS], chloroform, phenol, Chelex 100, and guanadinium isothiocyanate), different physical disruption methods (bead mill homogenization and freeze-thaw lysis), and lysozyme digestion were evaluated based on the yield and molecular size of the recovered DNA. Pairwise comparisons of the nine extraction procedures revealed that bead mill homogenization with SDS combined with either chloroform or phenol optimized both the amount of DNA extracted and the molecular size of the DNA (maximum size, 16 to 20 kb). Neither lysozyme digestion before SDS treatment nor guanidine isothiocyanate treatment nor addition of Chelex 100 resin improved the DNA yields. Bead mill homogenization in a lysis mixture containing chloroform, SDS, NaCl, and phosphate-Tris buffer (pH 8) was found to be the best physical lysis technique when DNA yield and cell lysis efficiency were used as criteria. The bead mill homogenization conditions were also optimized for speed and duration with two different homogenizers. Recovery of high-molecular-weight DNA was greatest when we used lower speeds and shorter times (30 to 120 s). We evaluated four different DNA purification methods (silica-based DNA binding, agarose gel electrophoresis, ammonium acetate precipitation, and Sephadex G-200 gel filtration) for DNA recovery and removal of PCR inhibitors from crude extracts. Sephadex G-200 spin column purification was found to be the best method for removing PCR-inhibiting substances while minimizing DNA loss during purification. Our results indicate that for these types of samples, optimum DNA recovery requires brief, low-speed bead mill homogenization in the presence of a phosphate-buffered SDS-chloroform mixture, followed by Sephadex G-200 column purification.
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
Reducing the Effects of PCR Amplification and Sequencing Artifacts on 16S rRNA-Based Studies
Schloss, P. D., Gevers, D., & Westcott, S. L. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027310 · Cited by 2,112
Adams, R. I., Miletto, M., Taylor, J. W., & Bruns, T. D. (2013) · The ISME Journal · doi:10.1038/ismej.2013.28 · Cited by 939
Daniel, R. (2005) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro1160 · Cited by 862
Evaluation of Methods for the Extraction and Purification of DNA from the Human Microbiome
Yuan, S., Cohen, D. B., Ravel, J., Abdo, Z., & Forney, L. J. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033865 · Cited by 511
DeSantis, T. Z., Brodie, E. L., Moberg, J. P., Zubieta, I. X., Piceno, Y. M., & Andersen, G. L. (2007) · Microbial Ecology · doi:10.1007/s00248-006-9134-9 · Cited by 508
Metadata
- Authors
- Miller, D. N., Bryant, J. E., Madsen, E. L., & Ghiorse, W. C.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1999-11
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 4715-4724
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W2153823136
- Cited by
- 977
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.06
- 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: Evaluation and Optimization of DNA Extraction and Purification Procedures for Soil and Sediment Samples. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.65.11.4715-4724.1999
- The paper
- Miller, D. N., Bryant, J. E., Madsen, E. L., & Ghiorse, W. C. (1999). Evaluation and Optimization of DNA Extraction and Purification Procedures for Soil and Sediment Samples. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.65.11.4715-4724.1999
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.