家禽饲料微生物组分析:第一部分:五种不同 DNA 提取方法的比较。

IF 1.4 4区 农林科学 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
E G Olson, D K Dittoe, A C Micciche, D A Stock, P M Rubinelli, M J Rothrock, S C Ricke
{"title":"家禽饲料微生物组分析:第一部分:五种不同 DNA 提取方法的比较。","authors":"E G Olson, D K Dittoe, A C Micciche, D A Stock, P M Rubinelli, M J Rothrock, S C Ricke","doi":"10.1080/03601234.2024.2353002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Given extensive variability in feed composition, the absence of a dedicated DNA extraction kit for poultry feed underscores the need for an optimized extraction technique for reliable downstream sequencing analyses. This study investigates the impact of five DNA extraction techniques: Qiagen QIAamp DNA Stool Mini Kit (Qiagen), modified Qiagen with Lysing Matrix B (MQ), modified Qiagen with celite purification (MQC), polyethylene glycol (PEG), and 1-Day Direct. Genomic DNA amplification and Illumina MiSeq sequencing were conducted. QIIME2-2021.4 facilitated data analysis, revealing significant diversity and compositional differences influenced by extraction methods. Qiagen exhibited lower evenness and richness compared to other methods. 1-Day Direct and PEG enhanced bacterial diversities by employing bead beating and lysozyme. Despite similar taxonomic resolution, the Qiagen kit provides a rapid, consistent method for assessing poultry feed microbiomes. Modified techniques (MQ and MQC) improve DNA purification, reducing bias in commercial poultry feed samples. PEG and 1-Day Direct methods were effective but may require standardization. Overall, this study underscores the importance of optimized extraction techniques in poultry feed analysis, with potential implications for future standardization of effective methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":15720,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part B-pesticides Food Contaminants and Agricultural Wastes","volume":" ","pages":"378-389"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Microbiome analyses of poultry feeds: Part I. Comparison of five different DNA extraction methods.\",\"authors\":\"E G Olson, D K Dittoe, A C Micciche, D A Stock, P M Rubinelli, M J Rothrock, S C Ricke\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03601234.2024.2353002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Given extensive variability in feed composition, the absence of a dedicated DNA extraction kit for poultry feed underscores the need for an optimized extraction technique for reliable downstream sequencing analyses. This study investigates the impact of five DNA extraction techniques: Qiagen QIAamp DNA Stool Mini Kit (Qiagen), modified Qiagen with Lysing Matrix B (MQ), modified Qiagen with celite purification (MQC), polyethylene glycol (PEG), and 1-Day Direct. Genomic DNA amplification and Illumina MiSeq sequencing were conducted. QIIME2-2021.4 facilitated data analysis, revealing significant diversity and compositional differences influenced by extraction methods. Qiagen exhibited lower evenness and richness compared to other methods. 1-Day Direct and PEG enhanced bacterial diversities by employing bead beating and lysozyme. Despite similar taxonomic resolution, the Qiagen kit provides a rapid, consistent method for assessing poultry feed microbiomes. Modified techniques (MQ and MQC) improve DNA purification, reducing bias in commercial poultry feed samples. PEG and 1-Day Direct methods were effective but may require standardization. Overall, this study underscores the importance of optimized extraction techniques in poultry feed analysis, with potential implications for future standardization of effective methods.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15720,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part B-pesticides Food Contaminants and Agricultural Wastes\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"378-389\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part B-pesticides Food Contaminants and Agricultural Wastes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03601234.2024.2353002\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part B-pesticides Food Contaminants and Agricultural Wastes","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03601234.2024.2353002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

考虑到饲料成分的广泛变异性,由于没有专门的家禽饲料 DNA 提取试剂盒,因此需要一种优化的提取技术来进行可靠的下游测序分析。本研究调查了五种 DNA 提取技术的影响:Qiagen QIAamp DNA Stool Mini Kit (Qiagen)、改良 Qiagen 与裂解矩阵 B (MQ)、改良 Qiagen 与 Celite 纯化 (MQC)、聚乙二醇 (PEG) 和 1-Day Direct。进行基因组 DNA 扩增和 Illumina MiSeq 测序。QIIME2-2021.4 为数据分析提供了便利,揭示了受提取方法影响的显著多样性和成分差异。与其他方法相比,Qiagen 的均匀度和丰富度较低。1-Day Direct 和 PEG 通过使用打珠和溶菌酶提高了细菌的多样性。尽管分类分辨率相似,但 Qiagen 试剂盒为评估家禽饲料微生物组提供了一种快速、一致的方法。改良技术(MQ 和 MQC)提高了 DNA 纯化率,减少了商业家禽饲料样本中的偏差。PEG 和 1-Day Direct 方法很有效,但可能需要标准化。总之,本研究强调了优化提取技术在家禽饲料分析中的重要性,并对未来有效方法的标准化具有潜在影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Microbiome analyses of poultry feeds: Part I. Comparison of five different DNA extraction methods.

Given extensive variability in feed composition, the absence of a dedicated DNA extraction kit for poultry feed underscores the need for an optimized extraction technique for reliable downstream sequencing analyses. This study investigates the impact of five DNA extraction techniques: Qiagen QIAamp DNA Stool Mini Kit (Qiagen), modified Qiagen with Lysing Matrix B (MQ), modified Qiagen with celite purification (MQC), polyethylene glycol (PEG), and 1-Day Direct. Genomic DNA amplification and Illumina MiSeq sequencing were conducted. QIIME2-2021.4 facilitated data analysis, revealing significant diversity and compositional differences influenced by extraction methods. Qiagen exhibited lower evenness and richness compared to other methods. 1-Day Direct and PEG enhanced bacterial diversities by employing bead beating and lysozyme. Despite similar taxonomic resolution, the Qiagen kit provides a rapid, consistent method for assessing poultry feed microbiomes. Modified techniques (MQ and MQC) improve DNA purification, reducing bias in commercial poultry feed samples. PEG and 1-Day Direct methods were effective but may require standardization. Overall, this study underscores the importance of optimized extraction techniques in poultry feed analysis, with potential implications for future standardization of effective methods.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.00%
发文量
87
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: 12 issues per year Abstracted/indexed in: Agricola; Analytical Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; BioSciences Information Service of Biological Abstracts (BIOSIS); CAB Abstracts; CAB AGBiotech News and Information; CAB Irrigation & Drainage Abstracts; CAB Soils & Fertilizers Abstracts; Chemical Abstracts Service Plus; CSA Aluminum Industry Abstracts; CSA ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology and Engineering; CSA ASFA 3 Aquatic Pollution and Environmental Quality; CSA ASSIA: Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts; CSA Ecology Abstracts; CSA Entomology Abstracts; CSA Environmental Engineering Abstracts; CSA Health & Safety Science Abstracts; CSA Pollution Abstracts; CSA Toxicology Abstracts; CSA Water Resource Abstracts; EBSCOhost Online Research Databases; Elsevier BIOBASE/Current Awareness in Biological Sciences; Elsevier Engineering Information: EMBASE/Excerpta Medica/ Engineering Index/COMPENDEX PLUS; Environment Abstracts; Environmental Knowledge; Food Science and Technology Abstracts; Geo Abstracts; Geobase; Food Science; Index Medicus/ MEDLINE; INIST-Pascal/ CNRS; NIOSHTIC; ISI BIOSIS Previews; Pesticides; Food Contaminants and Agricultural Wastes: Analytical Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; PubSCIENCE; Reference Update; Research Alert; Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE); and Water Resources Abstracts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信