The Effects from DNA Extraction Methods on the Evaluation of Microbial Diversity Associated with Human Colonic Tissue
- 769 Downloads
Potentially valuable sources of DNA have been extracted from human colonic tissues and are retained in biobanks throughout the world, and might be re-examined to better understand host–microbe interactions in health and disease. However, the published protocols for DNA extraction typically used by gastroenterologists have not been systematically compared in terms of their recovery of the microbial fraction associated with colonic tissue. For this reason, we examined how three different tissue DNA extraction methods (the QIAGEN AllPrep DNA/RNA kit, salting out and high molecular weight (HMW) methods of DNA extraction) employed in past clinical trials, and the repeated bead beating and column (RBB+C) method might impact the recovery of microbial DNA from colonic tissue, using a custom designed phylogenetic microarray for gut bacteria and archaea. All four methods produced very similar profiles of the microbial diversity, but there were some differences in probe signal intensities, with the HMW method producing stronger probe intensities for a subset of the Firmicutes probes including Clostridium and Streptococcus spp. Real-time PCR analysis revealed that the HMW and RBB+C extracted DNA contained significantly more DNA of Firmicutes origin and that the different DNA extraction methods also gave variable results in terms of host DNA recovery. All of the methods tested recovered DNA from the archaeal community although there were some differences in probe signal intensity. Based on these findings, we conclude that while all four methods are efficacious at releasing microbial DNA from biopsy tissue samples, the HMW and RBB+C methods of DNA extraction may release more DNA from some of the Firmicutes bacteria associated with colonic tissue. Thus, DNA archived in biobanks could be suitable for retrospective profiling analyses, provided the caveats with respect to the DNA extraction method(s) used are taken into account.
This research was funded in part by CSIRO’s Preventative Health Flagship Research Program (Colorectal Cancer and Gut Health Theme), CSIRO's Transformational Biology Capability Platform, the OCE Science Leader award (to MM) and the OCE Postdoctoral Fellow program (awarded to EK). We thank Antonio Reverter and Maree O’Sullivan for providing suggestions with the statistical analyses used in this research and also thank Michael Conlon and Sean McWilliam for providing critical reading and suggestions to improve the manuscript. PÓC and DAC contributed equally to this work.
- 3.Bas A, Forsberg G, Hammarstrom S, Hammarstrom ML (2004) Utility of the housekeeping genes 18S rRNA, b-actin and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate-dehydrogenase for normalization in real-time quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction analysis of gene expression in human T lymphocytes. Scand J Immunol 59:566–573CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Benson AK, Kelly SA, Legge R, Ma F, Low SJ, Kim J, Zhang M, Oh PL, Nehrenberg D, Hua K, Kachman SD, Moriyama EN, Walter J, Peterson DA, Pomp D (2010) Individuality in gut microbiota composition is a complex polygenic trait shaped by multiple environmental and host genetic factors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1007028107 Google Scholar
- 8.Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK, Fierer N, Pena AG, Goodrich JK, Gordon JI, Huttley GA, Kelley ST, Knights D, Koenig JE, Ley RE, Lozupone CA, McDonald D, Muegge BD, Pirrung M, Reeder J, Sevinsky JR, Turnbaugh PJ, Walters WA, Widmann J, Yatsunenko T, Zaneveld J, Knight R (2010) QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Meth 7:335–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Dray S, Dufour A-B (2007) The ade4 package: implementing the duality diagram for ecologists. J Stat Soft 22:1–20Google Scholar
- 24.Lane DS (1990) 16S and 23S rRNA sequencing. In: Stackebrandt E, Goodfellow M (eds) Nucleic acid techniques in bacterial systematics. Wiley, New York, pp 115–148Google Scholar
- 44.Qin J, Li R, Raes J, Arumugam M, Burgdorf KS, Manichanh C, Nielsen T, Pons N, Levenez F, Yamada T, Mende DR, Li J, Xu J, Li S, Li D, Cao J, Wang B, Liang H, Zheng H, Xie Y, Tap J, Lepage P, Bertalan M, Batto JM, Hansen T, Le Paslier D, Linneberg A, Nielsen HB, Pelletier E, Renault P, Sicheritz-Ponten T, Turner K, Zhu H, Yu C, Li S, Jian M, Zhou Y, Li Y, Zhang X, Li S, Qin N, Yang H, Wang J, Brunak S, Dore J, Guarner F, Kristiansen K, Pedersen O, Parkhill J, Weissenbach J, Bork P, Ehrlich SD, Wang J (2010) A human gut microbial gene catalogue established by metagenomic sequencing. Nature 464:59–65CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 48.Salonen A, Nikkilä J, Jalanka-Tuovinen J, Immonen O, Rajilic-Stojanovic M, Kekkonen RA, Palva A, de Vos WM (2010) Comparative analysis of fecal DNA extraction methods with phylogenetic microarray: effective recovery of bacterial and archaeal DNA using mechanical cell lysis. J Microbiol Methods 81:127–134CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 51.Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, Hall JR, Hartmann M, Hollister EB, Lesniewski RA, Oakley BB, Parks DH, Robinson CJ, Sahl JW, Stres B, Thallinger GG, Van Horn DJ, Weber CF (2009) Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:7537–7541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 60.Zoetendal EG, von Wright A, Vilpponen-Salmela T, Ben-Amor K, Akkermans AD, de Vos WM (2002) Mucosa-associated bacteria in the human gastrointestinal tract are uniformly distributed along the colon and differ from the community recovered from feces. Appl Environ Microbiol 68:3401–3407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar