A comparison of hard and soft direct methods for DNA extraction from soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nucleic acid extraction is the first step in molecular biology studies of soil bacterial communities. The most common used soil DNA extraction method is the direct, hard extraction Mobio method, which uses bead beating to lyse bacteria. In this study we compared the Mobio method with a soft, enzymatic lysis extraction method. Next generation sequencing (Illumina and Pyrosequencing) of amplicons generated from four 16S primer pairs and DNA from 12 soils and 3 composts was used to compare the two extraction methods. Four bacterial orders, the delta proteobacterial Desulfuromonadales and gamma proteobacterial Pseudomonadales, Enterobacteriales , and Alteromonadales were more common in amplicons from soft extracted DNA, sometimes by two orders of magnitude. These groups can be a significant fraction of the bacterial population. For example the Pseudomonadales made up to 16 % and Enterobacteriales 10% of amplicons from Soft extracted DNA. The JG30-KF-CM45 order was under extracted by the enzymatic lysis extraction method. Results differed more by primer choice than extraction method and the phylogenetic resolution of differences between extraction methods changed with primer choice. Given how often Mobio extraction is used, these proteobacterial orders are probably under-represented in the studies of soil bacteria that use nucleic acid methods. Further improvements in soil DNA extraction are needed. Amplicons sequencing studies should use a range of different primers to confirm the phylogenetic resolution of their results. Importance Several large scale studies of soil bacteria that compare thousands of soil samples across continents have used the Mobio method for DNA extraction. Large scale studies like these are increasing with the recent establishment of the Global Soil Biodiversity Observation Network (Soil BON), which also uses the Mobio method. The results of this work will be used to make policy decisions about how to manage the soil and may be a guide for bioprospectors. As the Mobio method is so widely used, it is important to know its limitations. Studies that use the Mobio method underestimate the fraction of several proteobacterial groups. Most notably the Enterobacteria and Pseudomonas can be under extracted by 10-100 fold. The degree of under extraction varies with different soils.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".