Cited by 277Gut microbiota and healthGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology

Choice of bacterial DNA extraction method from fecal material influences community structure as evaluated by metagenomic analysis

Open access
Wesolowska-Andersen, Agata, Bahl, Martin Iain, Carvalho, Vera, Kristiansen, Karsten, Sicheritz-Pontén, Thomas, Gupta, Ramneek, Licht, Tine Rask·2014·Microbiome

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In recent years, studies on the human intestinal microbiota have attracted tremendous attention. Application of next generation sequencing for mapping of bacterial phylogeny and function has opened new doors to this field of research. However, little attention has been given to the effects of choice of methodology on the output resulting from such studies. RESULTS: IN THIS STUDY WE CONDUCTED A SYSTEMATIC COMPARISON OF THE DNA EXTRACTION METHODS USED BY THE TWO MAJOR COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS: The European MetaHIT and the American Human Microbiome Project (HMP). Additionally, effects of homogenizing the samples before extraction were addressed. We observed significant differences in distribution of bacterial taxa depending on the method. While eukaryotic DNA was most efficiently extracted by the MetaHIT protocol, DNA from bacteria within the Bacteroidetes phylum was most efficiently extracted by the HMP protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas it is comforting that the inter-individual variation clearly exceeded the variation resulting from choice of extraction method, our data highlight the challenge of comparing data across studies applying different methodologies.

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 · 10.1186/2049-2618-2-19

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Comparisons of results from the Human Microbiome Project (HMP) with the MetaHIT project showed stark differences in microbiome profiles, and indicated that the HMP protocol was less effective at extracting DNA from eukaryotes and Gram-positive bacterial lineages.

    “comparisons of results from the Human Microbiome Project (HMP) with the MetaHIT project showed stark differences in microbiome profiles, and indicated that the HMP protocol was less effective at extracting DNA from eukaryotes and Gram-positive bacterial lineages 35 .”

    From Human microbiome myths and misconceptions (2023) · cites this paper as [35]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous detailed investigations of variables such as DNA extraction method, like the present results, enriched for broad classes of Gram-negative rather than Gram-positive bacteria because of technical rather than biological variables.

    “Previous detailed investigations of specific variables in microbiome experiments such as DNA extraction method have, in common with the results we report, enriched for broad classes of Gram-negative rather than Gram-positive bacteria due to technical rather than biological variables9, 24, 27, 28.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wesolowska-Andersen, A., Bahl, M. I., Carvalho, V., Kristiansen, K., Sicheritz-Pontén, T., Gupta, R., & Licht, T. R.
Affiliations
  • Technical University of Denmark (DK)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
  • Gupta, Ramneek
  • Licht, Tine Rask
Venue
Microbiome
Published
2014-06-05
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
19-19
ISSN
2049-2618 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2161919313
Cited by
277
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 1
FWCI
10.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Microbiome (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Strategic Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
Keywords
bacterial DNA extraction, fecal microbiota, human gut microbiome, extraction method comparison, sample homogenization, Bacteroidetes, bacterial community structure, inter-study comparability

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