AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
PDF (251.6 KB)
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Methodology | Open Access

Performance comparison of different microbial DNA extraction methods on bird feces

Xian Hou1,2,3Shengkai Pan2,3Zhenzhen Lin2,3Jiliang Xu1( )Xiangjiang Zhan2,3,4,( )
School of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, 100083, China
Key Lab of Animal Ecology and Conservation Biology, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China
Cardiff University-Institute of Zoology Joint Laboratory for Biocomplexity Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China
Center for Excellence in Animal Evolution and Genetics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, 650223, China

Jiliang Xu and Xiangjiang Zhan are joint senior authors

Show Author Information
An erratum to this article is available online at:

Abstract

Background

As an important player during food digestion, gut microbiota has attracted much attention in diet adaptation studies in birds. Microbiota extracted from feces has been widely used as a proxy for gut microbiota. Although several methods have been developed for microbial DNA extraction, their performances in the bird feces have not beensystematacially evaluated yet.

Methods

In this study, we applied three DNA extraction methods (Qiagen, MoBio and Bead) to extract DNA from feces of three avian dietary guilds (granivore, omnivore and carnivore), sequenced V4 region of 16S rRNA gene for each extract and evaluated the performances of DNA yield, DNA integrity, microbial composition, cell lysis capacity and alpha diversity for the three methods on each dietary guild.

Results

Bead method was thebest onthe performance of both DNA yield and DNA integrity regardless of dietary guild. In granivore, microbial relative abundance at both species and phylum levels, alpha diversityand cell lysis capacity were comparable among all methods. In omnivore, Qiagen had the best performance on alpha diversity, followed by Bead and MoBio. There were small variations on microbial relative abundance at both species and phylum levels among different extraction methods. MoBio exhibited the best performance on cell lysis capacity. In carnivore, considerable variations were found on microbial relative abundance at both species and phylum levels. Qiagen had the best performance on alpha diversity, followed by MoBio and Bead. MoBio had the highest cell lysis capacity.

Conclusions

DNA yield and integrity have no obvious impact on microbial composition, alpha diversity or cell lysis capacity. The microbiota results (e.g., microbial composition, cell lysis capacity, alpha diversity) obtained from different methods are comparable in granivorous avian species but not in omnivorous or carnivorous birds. Either method could be used in granivore microbiota studies. For omnivores and carnivores, we recommend Qiagen method when the research purpose is microbial diversity and MoBio when gram-positive bacteria is the research target.

References

 

Berlow M, Kohl KD, Derryberry EP. Evaluation of non-lethal gut microbiome sampling methods in a passerine bird. Ibis. 2020;162: 911–23.

 

Bolyen E, Rideout JR, Dillon MR, Bokulich NA, Abnet CC, Al-Ghalith GA, et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat Biotechnol. 2019;8: 852–7.

 

Burin G, Kissling WD, Guimarães PR, Şekercioğlu ÇH, Quental TB. Omnivory in birds is a macroevolutionary sink. Nat Commun. 2016;7: 1–10.

 

Costea PI, Zeller G, Sunagawa S, Pelletier E, Alberti A, Levenez F, et al. Towards standards for human fecal sample processing in metagenomic studies. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35: 1069–76.

 
Darwin C. The origin of species. 6th ed. London: John Murray Press; 1859.
 

DeJong TM. A comparison of three diversity indices based on their components of richness and evenness. Oikos. 1975;26: 222–7.

 

DeSantis TZ, Hugenholtz P, Keller K, Brodie EL, Larsen N, Piceno YM, et al. NAST: a multiple sequence alignment server for comparative analysis of 16SrRNA genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34: 394–9.

 

Di Rienzi SC, Britton RA. Adaptation of the gut microbiota to modern dietary sugars and sweeteners. Adv Nutr. 2020;11: 616–29.

 

Eriksson P, Mourkas E, González-Acuna D, Olsen B, Ellström P. Evaluation and optimization of microbial DNA extraction from fecal samples of wild Antarctic bird species. Infect Ecol Epidemiol. 2017;7: 1386536.

 

Fiedorová K, Radvanský M, Němcová E, Grombiříková H, Bosák J, Černochová M, et al. The impact of DNA extraction methods on stool bacterial and fungal microbiota community recovery. Front Microbiol. 2019;10: 821.

 

Fuertes A, Pérez-Burillo S, Apaolaza I, Vallès Y, Francino MP, Rufián-Henares JÁ, et al. Adaptation of the human gut microbiota metabolic network during the first year after birth. Front Microbiol. 2019;10: 848.

 

Fujimoto S, Nakagami Y, Kojima F. Optimal bacterial DNA isolation method using bead-beating technique. Memoirs Kyushu Univ Dep Of Health Scis Of Medical Sch. 2004;3: 33–8.

 
Gill F, Donsker D. IOC World Bird List (v 6.4). 2016. http://www.worldbirdnames.org. Accessed 31 Dec 2016.
 
Highlander S. Mock community analysis. In: Nelson K, editor. Encyclopedia of metagenomics. New York: Springer Press; 2014. p. 1–7.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6418-1_54-1
 

Huseyin CE, Rubio RC, O'Sullivan O, Cotter PD, Scanlan PD. The fungal frontier: a comparative analysis of methods used in the study of the human gut mycobiome. Front Microbiol. 2017;8: 1432.

 

Knudsen BE, Bergmark L, Munk P, Lukjancenko O, Prieme A, Aarestrup FM, et al. Impact of sample type and DNA isolation procedure on genomics inference of microbiome composition. mSystems. 2016;5: e00095-16.

 

Li J, Jia H, Cai X, Zhong H, Feng Q, Sunagawa S, et al. An integrated catalog of reference genes in the human gut microbiome. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32: 834–41.

 

Lim MY, Song EJ, Kim SH, Lee J, Nam YD. Comparison of DNA extraction methods for human gut microbial community profiling. Syst Appl Microbiol. 2018;41: 151–7.

 

Rintala A, Pietilä S, Munukka E, Eerola E, Pursiheimo JP, Laiho A, et al. Gut microbiota analysis results are highly dependent on the 16SrRNA gene target region, whereas the impact of DNA extraction is minor. JBT. 2017;28: 19–30.

 

Yang N, Yan W, Sun C, Zheng J, Wen C, Ji C, et al. Efficacy of fecal sampling as a gut proxy in the study of chicken gut microbiota. Front Microbiol. 2019;10: 2126.

Avian Research
Article number: 19
Cite this article:
Hou X, Pan S, Lin Z, et al. Performance comparison of different microbial DNA extraction methods on bird feces. Avian Research, 2021, 12(1): 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40657-021-00254-9

703

Views

27

Downloads

3

Crossref

6

Web of Science

7

Scopus

0

CSCD

Altmetrics

Received: 14 January 2021
Accepted: 21 April 2021
Published: 03 May 2021
© The Author(s) 2021.

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Return