Comparison of DNA Extraction Methods in Analysis of Salivary Bacterial Communities
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 8, Issue: 7, Page: e67699
2013
- 67Citations
- 179Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations67
- Citation Indexes67
- 67
- CrossRef39
- Captures179
- Readers179
- 179
Article Description
Culture-independent high-throughput sequencing-based methods are widely used to study bacterial communities. Although these approaches are superior to traditional culture-based methods, they introduce bias at the experimental and bioinformatics levels. We assessed the diversity of the human salivary microbiome by pyrosequencing of the 16S rDNA V1-3 amplicons using metagenomic DNA extracted by two different protocols: a simple proteinase K digestion without a subsequent DNA clean-up step, and a bead-beating mechanical lysis protocol followed by column DNA purification. A high degree of congruence was found between the two extraction methods, most notably in regard to the microbial community composition. The results showed that for a given bioinformatics pipeline, all the taxa with an average proportion >0.12% in samples processed using one extraction method were also detected in samples extracted using the other method. The same taxa tended to be abundant and frequent for both extraction methods. The relative abundance of sequence reads assigned to the phyla Actinobacteria, Spirochaetes, TM7, Synergistetes, and Tenericutes was significantly higher in the mechanically-treated samples than in the enzymatically-treated samples, whereas the phylum Firmicutes showed the opposite pattern. No significant differences in diversity indices were found between the extraction methods, although the mechanical lysis method revealed higher operational taxonomic unit richness. Differences between the extraction procedures outweighed the variations due to the bioinformatics analysis pipelines used. © 2013 Lazarevic et al.
Bibliographic Details
10.1371/journal.pone.0067699; 10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.g001; 10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.g004; 10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.g003; 10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.t001; 10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.g002
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84879755675&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23844068; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.g001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.g001; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.g004; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.g004; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.g003; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.g003; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.t001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.t001; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.g002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.g002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0067699; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.g003; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.g003; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.t001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.t001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.g004; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.g004; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.g001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.g001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.g002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.g002; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0067699; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0067699&type=printable; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.g001; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.t001; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.g004; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0067699; http://www.plosone.org/article/metrics/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0067699&type=printable; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.g003; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067699.g002
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know