Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 311

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Impact of Different DNA Extraction Kits and Laboratories upon the Assessment of Human Gut Microbiota Composition by 16S rRNA Gene Sequencing

Open access
Kennedy, Nicholas A., Walker, Alan W., Berry, Susan H., Duncan, Sylvia H., Farquarson, Freda M., Louis, Petra, Thomson, John M., Other members not named within the manuscript author list (alphabetical by surname):, Satsangi, Jack, Flint, Harry J., Parkhill, Julian, Lees, Charlie W., Hold, Georgina L.·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Determining bacterial community structure in fecal samples through DNA sequencing is an important facet of intestinal health research. The impact of different commercially available DNA extraction kits upon bacterial community structures has received relatively little attention. The aim of this study was to analyze bacterial communities in volunteer and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patient fecal samples extracted using widely used DNA extraction kits in established gastrointestinal research laboratories. METHODS: Fecal samples from two healthy volunteers (H3 and H4) and two relapsing IBD patients (I1 and I2) were investigated. DNA extraction was undertaken using MoBio Powersoil and MP Biomedicals FastDNA SPIN Kit for Soil DNA extraction kits. PCR amplification for pyrosequencing of bacterial 16S rRNA genes was performed in both laboratories on all samples. Hierarchical clustering of sequencing data was done using the Yue and Clayton similarity coefficient. RESULTS: DNA extracted using the FastDNA kit and the MoBio kit gave median DNA concentrations of 475 (interquartile range 228-561) and 22 (IQR 9-36) ng/µL respectively (p<0.0001). Hierarchical clustering of sequence data by Yue and Clayton coefficient revealed four clusters. Samples from individuals H3 and I2 clustered by patient; however, samples from patient I1 extracted with the MoBio kit clustered with samples from patient H4 rather than the other I1 samples. Linear modelling on relative abundance of common bacterial families revealed significant differences between kits; samples extracted with MoBio Powersoil showed significantly increased Bacteroidaceae, Ruminococcaceae and Porphyromonadaceae, and lower Enterobacteriaceae, Lachnospiraceae, Clostridiaceae, and Erysipelotrichaceae (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates significant differences in DNA yield and bacterial DNA composition when comparing DNA extracted from the same fecal sample with different extraction kits. This highlights the importance of ensuring that samples in a study are prepared with the same method, and the need for caution when cross-comparing studies that use different methods.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0088982

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 10 references

Cited by

See all 311

Metadata

Authors
Kennedy, N. A., Walker, A. W., Berry, S. H., Duncan, S. H., Farquarson, F. M., Louis, P., Thomson, J. M., surname):, O. M. N. N. W. T. M. A. L. (. B., Satsangi, J., Flint, H. J., Parkhill, J., Lees, C. W., & Hold, G. L.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-02-24
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
e88982
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1998966952
Cited by
311
References
10
FWCI
9.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: The Impact of Different DNA Extraction Kits and Laboratories upon the Assessment of Human Gut Microbiota Composition by 16S rRNA Gene Sequencing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0088982
The paper
Kennedy, N. A., Walker, A. W., Berry, S. H., Duncan, S. H., Farquarson, F. M., Louis, P., Thomson, J. M., surname):, O. M. N. N. W. T. M. A. L. (. B., Satsangi, J., Flint, H. J., Parkhill, J., Lees, C. W., & Hold, G. L. (2014). The Impact of Different DNA Extraction Kits and Laboratories upon the Assessment of Human Gut Microbiota Composition by 16S rRNA Gene Sequencing. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088982

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.