Hélène Dion-Phénix , Geneviève Bourret , Anne Charmantier , Steven W. Kembel , Denis Réale
{"title":"The choice of DNA extraction protocol affects the quantification of gut microbiomes in two passerines","authors":"Hélène Dion-Phénix , Geneviève Bourret , Anne Charmantier , Steven W. Kembel , Denis Réale","doi":"10.1016/j.mimet.2025.107144","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>There is ever increasing need for the robust characterization of the microbial communities of wild animals. DNA extraction from bird feces is challenging and to date, no protocol has proven to be efficient with all bird feces samples. Thus, there is a need to test different extraction protocols for a variety of bird species. We compared five commercial kits and four protocols to extract DNA from black-capped chickadee and blue tit feces. We found that all kits and methods allowed the study of the bacterial microbiota of black-capped chickadee feces, but the choice of kit influenced the measured diversity and composition of microbiota communities. Only two kits out of five allowed the recovery of DNA from blue tit feces. We recommend using PowerSoil by Qiagen or QuickDNA by Zymo Research with black-capped chickadee feces, and MagMAX by Fisher for blue tit feces. Our study highlights the difficulty of extracting microbial DNA from bird feces, points out the limits of comparing bacterial communities across studies using different methods, and proposes optimized efficient protocols to extract microbial DNA from feces of two commonly studied bird species for the study of bacterial microbiota.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16409,"journal":{"name":"Journal of microbiological methods","volume":"235 ","pages":"Article 107144"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of microbiological methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167701225000600","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
There is ever increasing need for the robust characterization of the microbial communities of wild animals. DNA extraction from bird feces is challenging and to date, no protocol has proven to be efficient with all bird feces samples. Thus, there is a need to test different extraction protocols for a variety of bird species. We compared five commercial kits and four protocols to extract DNA from black-capped chickadee and blue tit feces. We found that all kits and methods allowed the study of the bacterial microbiota of black-capped chickadee feces, but the choice of kit influenced the measured diversity and composition of microbiota communities. Only two kits out of five allowed the recovery of DNA from blue tit feces. We recommend using PowerSoil by Qiagen or QuickDNA by Zymo Research with black-capped chickadee feces, and MagMAX by Fisher for blue tit feces. Our study highlights the difficulty of extracting microbial DNA from bird feces, points out the limits of comparing bacterial communities across studies using different methods, and proposes optimized efficient protocols to extract microbial DNA from feces of two commonly studied bird species for the study of bacterial microbiota.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Microbiological Methods publishes scholarly and original articles, notes and review articles. These articles must include novel and/or state-of-the-art methods, or significant improvements to existing methods. Novel and innovative applications of current methods that are validated and useful will also be published. JMM strives for scholarship, innovation and excellence. This demands scientific rigour, the best available methods and technologies, correctly replicated experiments/tests, the inclusion of proper controls, calibrations, and the correct statistical analysis. The presentation of the data must support the interpretation of the method/approach.
All aspects of microbiology are covered, except virology. These include agricultural microbiology, applied and environmental microbiology, bioassays, bioinformatics, biotechnology, biochemical microbiology, clinical microbiology, diagnostics, food monitoring and quality control microbiology, microbial genetics and genomics, geomicrobiology, microbiome methods regardless of habitat, high through-put sequencing methods and analysis, microbial pathogenesis and host responses, metabolomics, metagenomics, metaproteomics, microbial ecology and diversity, microbial physiology, microbial ultra-structure, microscopic and imaging methods, molecular microbiology, mycology, novel mathematical microbiology and modelling, parasitology, plant-microbe interactions, protein markers/profiles, proteomics, pyrosequencing, public health microbiology, radioisotopes applied to microbiology, robotics applied to microbiological methods,rumen microbiology, microbiological methods for space missions and extreme environments, sampling methods and samplers, soil and sediment microbiology, transcriptomics, veterinary microbiology, sero-diagnostics and typing/identification.