用于定性和定量研究的细菌环境 DNA 和 RNA 分离的优化和应用

Q1 Agricultural and Biological Sciences Environmental DNA Pub Date : 2024-07-16 DOI:10.1002/edn3.589
Daniel J. Browne, Catherine M. Miller, Emily P. O'Hara, Robert Courtney, Jamie Seymour, Denise L. Doolan, Ryan Orr
{"title":"用于定性和定量研究的细菌环境 DNA 和 RNA 分离的优化和应用","authors":"Daniel J. Browne,&nbsp;Catherine M. Miller,&nbsp;Emily P. O'Hara,&nbsp;Robert Courtney,&nbsp;Jamie Seymour,&nbsp;Denise L. Doolan,&nbsp;Ryan Orr","doi":"10.1002/edn3.589","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Molecular detection of environmental DNA (eDNA) and RNA (eRNA) allows highly sensitive qualitative (i.e., presence or absence) and quantitative (i.e., abundance) monitoring of aquatic bacteria. However, bacterial molecular diagnostics are limited by low positive predictive values. Protocols for bacterial eDNA and eRNA molecular monitoring have primarily focused on optimizing specimen collection, and the optimal method to purify bacterial nucleic material from postcollection aquatic specimens to maximize the analytical sensitivity of molecular diagnostics remains poorly defined. Accordingly, strategies to isolate bacterial eDNA and eRNA from fresh and saltwater were investigated. We evaluated two filtration and four nucleic acid purification systems as representative of current generation bacterial eDNA and eRNA isolation strategies for capacity to isolate bacterial eDNA and eRNA from prelysed (i.e., free-nucleic acids) and viable (i.e., colony forming units, CFU) bacterial cells. We also compared the sensitivities of reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) and metagenomic shotgun microbiome sequencing. The optimal protocol used 0.7 μm borosilicate glass filters (Whatman plc) followed by extraction with the RNeasy PowerWater kit (Qiagen). The protocol had a very high analytical sensitivity (10<sup>−3</sup>–10<sup>0</sup> ng and 10<sup>2</sup>–10<sup>1</sup> CFU detected in 500 mL) across multiple species of bacteria, when tested with either RTqPCR or metagenomic sequencing. Importantly, this study highlighted several limitations which are restrictive to both qualitative and quantitative bacterial eDNA and eRNA studies. First, a 12-h time course between sampling and extraction revealed significant species-specific changes in cell number and free-nucleic acid concentrations can occur postspecimen collection. Second, we found Gram-positive bacteria yielded less nucleic material compared to Gram-negative bacteria suggesting bacterial eDNA and eRNA studies could be biased by microorganism genome stability and extraction efficiency. This study highlights the need to define the species-specific diagnostic sensitivity of a protocol when monitoring aquatic bacterial eDNA and eRNA with molecular diagnostics.</p>","PeriodicalId":52828,"journal":{"name":"Environmental DNA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/edn3.589","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimization and application of bacterial environmental DNA and RNA isolation for qualitative and quantitative studies\",\"authors\":\"Daniel J. Browne,&nbsp;Catherine M. Miller,&nbsp;Emily P. O'Hara,&nbsp;Robert Courtney,&nbsp;Jamie Seymour,&nbsp;Denise L. Doolan,&nbsp;Ryan Orr\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/edn3.589\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Molecular detection of environmental DNA (eDNA) and RNA (eRNA) allows highly sensitive qualitative (i.e., presence or absence) and quantitative (i.e., abundance) monitoring of aquatic bacteria. However, bacterial molecular diagnostics are limited by low positive predictive values. Protocols for bacterial eDNA and eRNA molecular monitoring have primarily focused on optimizing specimen collection, and the optimal method to purify bacterial nucleic material from postcollection aquatic specimens to maximize the analytical sensitivity of molecular diagnostics remains poorly defined. Accordingly, strategies to isolate bacterial eDNA and eRNA from fresh and saltwater were investigated. We evaluated two filtration and four nucleic acid purification systems as representative of current generation bacterial eDNA and eRNA isolation strategies for capacity to isolate bacterial eDNA and eRNA from prelysed (i.e., free-nucleic acids) and viable (i.e., colony forming units, CFU) bacterial cells. We also compared the sensitivities of reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) and metagenomic shotgun microbiome sequencing. The optimal protocol used 0.7 μm borosilicate glass filters (Whatman plc) followed by extraction with the RNeasy PowerWater kit (Qiagen). The protocol had a very high analytical sensitivity (10<sup>−3</sup>–10<sup>0</sup> ng and 10<sup>2</sup>–10<sup>1</sup> CFU detected in 500 mL) across multiple species of bacteria, when tested with either RTqPCR or metagenomic sequencing. Importantly, this study highlighted several limitations which are restrictive to both qualitative and quantitative bacterial eDNA and eRNA studies. First, a 12-h time course between sampling and extraction revealed significant species-specific changes in cell number and free-nucleic acid concentrations can occur postspecimen collection. Second, we found Gram-positive bacteria yielded less nucleic material compared to Gram-negative bacteria suggesting bacterial eDNA and eRNA studies could be biased by microorganism genome stability and extraction efficiency. This study highlights the need to define the species-specific diagnostic sensitivity of a protocol when monitoring aquatic bacterial eDNA and eRNA with molecular diagnostics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52828,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental DNA\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/edn3.589\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental DNA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/edn3.589\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Agricultural and Biological Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental DNA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/edn3.589","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

通过对环境 DNA (eDNA) 和 RNA (eRNA) 进行分子检测,可以对水生细菌进行高灵敏度的定性(即存在或不存在)和定量(即丰度)监测。然而,细菌分子诊断受限于较低的阳性预测值。细菌 eDNA 和 eRNA 分子监测方案主要侧重于优化标本采集,而从采集后的水生标本中纯化细菌核物质以最大限度提高分子诊断分析灵敏度的最佳方法仍未确定。因此,我们研究了从淡水和海水中分离细菌 eDNA 和 eRNA 的策略。我们评估了两套过滤系统和四套核酸纯化系统,它们代表了当前新一代细菌 eDNA 和 eRNA 分离策略,可从预溶(即游离核酸)和存活(即菌落形成单位,CFU)的细菌细胞中分离出细菌 eDNA 和 eRNA。我们还比较了反转录定量 PCR(RT-qPCR)和元基因组枪式微生物组测序的灵敏度。最佳方案是使用 0.7 μm 硼硅酸盐玻璃过滤器(Whatman plc),然后用 RNeasy PowerWater 试剂盒(Qiagen)进行提取。在使用 RTqPCR 或元基因组测序进行测试时,该方案对多种细菌具有极高的分析灵敏度(500 mL 中检测到 10-3-100 纳克和 102-101 CFU)。重要的是,这项研究强调了几个限制细菌 eDNA 和 eRNA 定性和定量研究的局限性。首先,从采样到提取的 12 小时时间过程显示,样本采集后细胞数量和游离核酸浓度会发生显著的物种特异性变化。其次,我们发现与革兰氏阴性菌相比,革兰氏阳性菌产生的核物质较少,这表明细菌 eDNA 和 eRNA 研究可能会受到微生物基因组稳定性和提取效率的影响。这项研究强调,在使用分子诊断技术监测水生细菌 eDNA 和 eRNA 时,有必要确定方案对特定物种的诊断灵敏度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Optimization and application of bacterial environmental DNA and RNA isolation for qualitative and quantitative studies

Molecular detection of environmental DNA (eDNA) and RNA (eRNA) allows highly sensitive qualitative (i.e., presence or absence) and quantitative (i.e., abundance) monitoring of aquatic bacteria. However, bacterial molecular diagnostics are limited by low positive predictive values. Protocols for bacterial eDNA and eRNA molecular monitoring have primarily focused on optimizing specimen collection, and the optimal method to purify bacterial nucleic material from postcollection aquatic specimens to maximize the analytical sensitivity of molecular diagnostics remains poorly defined. Accordingly, strategies to isolate bacterial eDNA and eRNA from fresh and saltwater were investigated. We evaluated two filtration and four nucleic acid purification systems as representative of current generation bacterial eDNA and eRNA isolation strategies for capacity to isolate bacterial eDNA and eRNA from prelysed (i.e., free-nucleic acids) and viable (i.e., colony forming units, CFU) bacterial cells. We also compared the sensitivities of reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) and metagenomic shotgun microbiome sequencing. The optimal protocol used 0.7 μm borosilicate glass filters (Whatman plc) followed by extraction with the RNeasy PowerWater kit (Qiagen). The protocol had a very high analytical sensitivity (10−3–100 ng and 102–101 CFU detected in 500 mL) across multiple species of bacteria, when tested with either RTqPCR or metagenomic sequencing. Importantly, this study highlighted several limitations which are restrictive to both qualitative and quantitative bacterial eDNA and eRNA studies. First, a 12-h time course between sampling and extraction revealed significant species-specific changes in cell number and free-nucleic acid concentrations can occur postspecimen collection. Second, we found Gram-positive bacteria yielded less nucleic material compared to Gram-negative bacteria suggesting bacterial eDNA and eRNA studies could be biased by microorganism genome stability and extraction efficiency. This study highlights the need to define the species-specific diagnostic sensitivity of a protocol when monitoring aquatic bacterial eDNA and eRNA with molecular diagnostics.

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
Environmental DNA
Environmental DNA Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Bottom Trawling and Multi-Marker eDNA Metabarcoding Surveys Reveal Highly Diverse Vertebrate and Crustacean Communities: A Case Study in an Urbanized Subtropical Estuary Evaluation of a Nanopore Sequencing Strategy on Bacterial Communities From Marine Sediments Current Trends in Biophysical Modeling of eDNA Dynamics for the Detection of Marine Species Validation of Environmental DNA for Estimating Proportional and Absolute Biomass
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1