Choice of Commercial DNA Extraction Method Does Not Affect 16S Sequencing Outcomes in Cloacal Swabs release_o5em7dechvft5gh3tnkj3533ai

by Emily Bean, Natália Carrillo Gaeta, Erika Ganda

Published in Animals by MDPI AG.

2021   Volume 11, Issue 5, p1372

Abstract

As the applications of microbiome science in agriculture expand, laboratory methods should be constantly evaluated to ensure optimization and reliability of downstream results. Most animal microbiome research uses fecal samples or rectal swabs for profiling the gut bacterial community; however, in birds, this is difficult given the unique anatomy of the cloaca where the fecal, urinary, and reproductive tracts converge into one orifice. Therefore, avian gut microbiomes are usually sampled from cloacal swabs, creating a need to evaluate sample preparation methods to optimize 16S sequencing. We compared four different DNA extraction methods from two commercially available kits on cloacal swabs from 10 adult commercial laying hens and included mock communities and negative controls, which were then subjected to 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing. Extracted DNA yield and quality, diversity analyses, and contaminants were assessed. Differences in DNA quality and quantity were observed, and all methods needed further purification for optimal sequencing, suggesting contaminants due to cloacal contents, method reagents, and/or environmental factors. However, no differences were observed in alpha or beta diversity between methods. Importantly, multiple bacterial contaminants were detected in each mock community and negative control, indicating the prevalence of laboratory and handling contamination as well as method-specific reagent contamination. We found that although the extraction methods resulted in different extraction quality and yield, overall sequencing results were not affected, and we did not identify any method that would be an inappropriate choice in extracting DNA from cloacal swabs for 16S rRNA sequencing. Overall, our results highlight the need for careful consideration of positive and negative controls in addition to DNA isolation method and lend guidance to future microbiome research in poultry.
In application/xml+jats format

Archived Files and Locations

application/pdf  1.6 MB
file_ee453uistnhanmrvsslpjv25ze
res.mdpi.com (publisher)
web.archive.org (webarchive)
Read Archived PDF
Preserved and Accessible
Type  article-journal
Stage   published
Date   2021-05-12
Language   en ?
DOI  10.3390/ani11051372
PubMed  34065976
Container Metadata
Open Access Publication
In DOAJ
In ISSN ROAD
In Keepers Registry
ISSN-L:  2076-2615
Work Entity
access all versions, variants, and formats of this works (eg, pre-prints)
Catalog Record
Revision: e11378c0-fd60-4525-9443-bf6d2bd4cc3a
API URL: JSON