MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096910504 · doi:10.1139/w11-049

Comparison of commercial DNA extraction kits for isolation and purification of bacterial and eukaryotic DNA from PAH-contaminated soils

2011· article· en· W2096910504 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Nagissa Mahmoudi, G. F. Slater, Roberta R. Fulthorpe

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial bioremediation and biosurfactants
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDNA extractionContaminationDNAExtraction (chemistry)Soil waterTemperature gradient gel electrophoresisSoil contaminationChemistryEnvironmental chemistryBacteriaChromatographyPolymerase chain reactionBiology16S ribosomal RNABiochemistryGeneGeneticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Molecular characterization of the microbial populations of soils and sediments contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) is often a first step in assessing intrinsic biodegradation potential. However, soils are problematic for molecular analysis owing to the presence of organic matter, such as humic acids. Furthermore, the presence of contaminants, such as PAHs, can cause further challenges to DNA extraction, quantification, and amplification. The goal of our study was to compare the effectiveness of four commercial soil DNA extraction kits (UltraClean Soil DNA Isolation kit, PowerSoil DNA Isolation kit, PowerMax Soil DNA Isolation kit, and FastDNA SPIN kit) to extract pure, high-quality bacterial and eukaryotic DNA from PAH-contaminated soils. Six different contaminated soils were used to determine if there were any biases among the kits due to soil properties or level of contamination. Extracted DNA was used as a template for bacterial 16S rDNA and eukaryotic 18S rDNA amplifications, and PCR products were subsequently analyzed using denaturing gel gradient electrophoresis (DGGE). We found that the FastDNA SPIN kit provided significantly higher DNA yields for all soils; however, it also resulted in the highest levels of humic acid contamination. Soil texture and organic carbon content of the soil did not affect the DNA yield of any kit. Moreover, a liquid-liquid extraction of the DNA extracts found no residual PAHs, indicating that all kits were effective at removing contaminants in the extraction process. Although the PowerSoil DNA Isolation kit gave relatively low DNA yields, it provided the highest quality DNA based on successful amplification of both bacterial and eukaryotic DNA for all six soils. DGGE fingerprints among the kits were dramatically different for both bacterial and eukaryotic DNA. The PowerSoil DNA Isolation kit revealed multiple bands for each soil and provided the most consistent DGGE profiles among replicates for both bacterial and eukaryotic DNA.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations97
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicMicrobial bioremediation and biosurfactantsFrench-language works237,207