The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Back to Basics – The Influence of DNA Extraction and Primer Choice on Phylogenetic Analysis of Activated Sludge Communities
Open accessAbstract
DNA extraction and primer choice have a large effect on the observed community structure in all microbial amplicon sequencing analyses. Although the biases are well known, no comprehensive analysis has been conducted in activated sludge communities. In this study we systematically explored the impact of a number of parameters on the observed microbial community: bead beating intensity, primer choice, extracellular DNA removal, and various PCR settings. In total, 176 samples were subjected to 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, and selected samples were investigated through metagenomics and metatranscriptomics. Quantitative fluorescence in situ hybridization was used as a DNA extraction-independent method for qualitative comparison. In general, an effect on the observed community was found on all parameters tested, although bead beating and primer choice had the largest effect. The effect of bead beating intensity correlated with cell-wall strength as seen by a large increase in DNA from Gram-positive bacteria (up to 400%). However, significant differences were present at lower phylogenetic levels within the same phylum, suggesting that additional factors are at play. The best primer set based on in silico analysis was found to underestimate a number of important bacterial groups. For 16S rRNA gene analysis in activated sludge we recommend using the FastDNA SPIN Kit for Soil with four times the normal bead beating and V1-3 primers.
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
Cites
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2
Love, M. I., Huber, W., & Anders, S. (2014) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8 · Cited by 95,106
Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2
Langmead, B., & Salzberg, S. L. (2012) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.1923 · Cited by 56,400
QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data
Caporaso, J. G., Kuczynski, J., Stombaugh, J., Bittinger, K., Bushman, F. D., Costello, E. K., Fierer, N., Peña, A. G., Goodrich, J. K., Gordon, J. I., et al. (2010) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.f.303 · Cited by 34,887
The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools
Quast, C., Pruesse, E., Yilmaz, P., Gerken, J., Schweer, T., Yarza, P., Peplies, J., & Glöckner, F. O. (2012) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gks1219 · Cited by 33,055
vegan: Community Ecology Package
Oksanen, J., Simpson, G. L., Blanchet, F. G., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., Minchin, P. R., O'Hara, R. B., Solymos, P., Stevens, M. H. H., Szoecs, E., et al. (2001) · CRAN: Contributed Packages · doi:10.32614/cran.package.vegan · Cited by 22,615
phyloseq: An R Package for Reproducible Interactive Analysis and Graphics of Microbiome Census Data
McMurdie, P. J., & Holmes, S. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0061217 · Cited by 21,322
Naïve Bayesian Classifier for Rapid Assignment of rRNA Sequences into the New Bacterial Taxonomy
Wang, Q., Garrity, G. M., Tiedje, J. M., & Cole, J. R. (2007) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.00062-07 · Cited by 19,885
UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads
Edgar, R. C. (2013) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.2604 · Cited by 16,707
FLASH: fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies
Magoč, T., & Salzberg, S. L. (2011) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btr507 · Cited by 15,366
Cited by
Microbiome definition re-visited: old concepts and new challenges
Berg, G., Rybakova, D., Fischer, D., Cernava, T., Vergès, M.-C. C., Charles, T., Chen, X., Cocolin, L., Eversole, K., Corral, G. H., et al. (2020) · Microbiome · doi:10.1186/s40168-020-00875-0 · Cited by 2,275
Vollmers, J., Wiegand, S., & Kaster, A.-K. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169662 · Cited by 240
Jin, D., Zhao, S., Zheng, N., Bu, D., Beckers, Y., Denman, S. E., McSweeney, C. S., & Wang, J. (2017) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2017.00385 · Cited by 80
DNA extraction bias is more pronounced for microbial eukaryotes than for prokaryotes
Brauer, A., & Bengtsson, M. M. (2022) · MicrobiologyOpen · doi:10.1002/mbo3.1323 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Albertsen, M., Karst, S. M., Ziegler, A. S., Kirkegaard, R. H., & Nielsen, P. H.
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2015-07-16
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- e0132783
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1604029064
- Cited by
- 527
- References
- 38
- FWCI
- 28.62
- 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: Back to Basics – The Influence of DNA Extraction and Primer Choice on Phylogenetic Analysis of Activated Sludge Communities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0132783
- The paper
- Albertsen, M., Karst, S. M., Ziegler, A. S., Kirkegaard, R. H., & Nielsen, P. H. (2015). Back to Basics – The Influence of DNA Extraction and Primer Choice on Phylogenetic Analysis of Activated Sludge Communities. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132783
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.
