Antonie van Leeuwenhoek

, Volume 98, Issue 4, pp 567–571 | Cite as

Comparison of methods for the extraction of DNA from stream epilithic biofilms

Short Communication

Abstract

This study compares how different DNA extraction methods influence the quantity and quality of DNA yields from stream epilithic biofilms. Interpretations of bacterial community structure, using ARISA, revealed increased variability among samples processed using commercially-available kits, which also yielded lower DNA concentrations than other methods tested.

Keywords

Bacterial DNA extraction kit ARISA 

Supplementary material

10482_2010_9464_MOESM1_ESM.doc (74 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 73 kb)

References

  1. Aguilera A, Souza-Egipsy V, Martin-Uriz PS, Amils R (2008) Extracellular matrix assembly in extreme acidic eukaryotic biofilms and their possible implications in heavy metal adsorption. Aquat Toxicol 88:257–266Google Scholar
  2. Anderson MJ, Gorley RN, Clarke KR (2008) PERMANOVA + for PRIMER: guide to software and statistical methods. PRIMER-E Ltd., Plymouth, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  3. Barreto SRG, Nozaki J, Barreto WJ (2003) Origin of dissolved organic carbon studied by UV-vis spectroscopy. Acta Hydrochim Hydrobiol 31:513–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Battin TJ, Kaplan LA, Newbold D, Hansen CME (2003) Contributions of microbial biofilms to ecosystem processes in stream mesocosms. Nature 426:439–442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Georgio CD, Papapostolou I (2006) Assay for the quantification of intact/fragmented genomic DNA. Anal Biochem 358:247–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Griffiths RI, Whiteley AS, O’Donnell AG, Bailey MJ (2000) Rapid method for coextraction of DNA and RNA from natural environments for analysis of ribosomal DNA- and rRNA-based microbial community composition. Appl Environ Microbiol 66:5488–5491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Lear G, Lewis GD (2009) Impact of catchment land use on bacterial communities within stream biofilms. Ecol Indic 9:848–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lear G, Anderson MJ, Smith JP, Boxen K, Lewis GD (2008) Spatial and temporal heterogeneity of the bacterial communities in stream epilithic biofilms. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 65:463–473CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Lear G, Boothroyd IKG, Turner SJ, Roberts K, Lewis GD (2009) A comparison of bacteria and benthic invertebrates as indicators of ecological health within streams. Freshwat Biol 54:1532–1543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Miller DN, Bryant JE, Madsen EL, Ghiorse WC (1999) Evaluation and optimization of DNA extraction and purification procedures for soil and sediment samples. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:4715–4724PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Pinto FL, Thapper A, Sontheim W, Lindblad P (2009) Analysis of current and alternative phenol-based RNA extraction methodologies for cyanobacteria. BMC Mol Biol 10:79CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Radstrom P, Knutsson R, Wolffs P, Lovenklev M, Lofstrom C (2007) Pre-PCR processing: Strategies to generate PCR-compatible samples. Mol Biotechnol 26:133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ranjard L, Poly F, Lata JC, Mougal C, Thioulouse J, Nazaret S (2001) Characterization of bacterial and fungal soil communities by automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis fingerprints: biological and methodological variability. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:4479–4487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Romani AM, Giorgi A, Acuna V, Sabater S (2004) The influence of substratum type and nutrient supply on biofilm organic matter utilization in streams. Limnol Oceanogr 49:1713–1721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Thakuria D, Schmidt O, MacSiurtain M, Egan D, Doohan FM (2008) Importance of DNA quality in comparitive soil microbial community structure analysis. Soil Biol Biochem 40:1390–1403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Yeates C, Gillings M, Davidson A, Altavilla N, Veal D (1998) Methods for microbial DNA extraction from soil for PCR amplification. Biol Proced Online 1:40–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Zhou J, Bruns MA, Tiedje JM (1996) DNA recovery from soils of diverse composition. Appl Environ Microbiol 62:316–322PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Soil and Physical SciencesLincoln UniversityLincolnNew Zealand
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations