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。
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.