Advertisement

Indian Journal of Microbiology

, Volume 59, Issue 4, pp 482–489 | Cite as

Comparison of DNA Extraction Methods for Optimal Recovery of Metagenomic DNA from Human and Environmental Samples

  • Mohita Gaur
  • Aarushi Vasudeva
  • Anoop Singh
  • Vishal Sharma
  • Himani Khurana
  • Ram Krishan Negi
  • Jung-Kul Lee
  • Vipin Chandra Kalia
  • Richa MisraEmail author
  • Yogendra SinghEmail author
Original Research Article
  • 65 Downloads

Abstract

Metagenomics is the study of gene pool of an entire community in a particular niche. This provides valuable information about the functionality of host-microbe interaction in a biological ecosystem. Efficient metagenomic DNA extraction is a critical pre-requisite for a successful sequencing run in a metagenomic study. Although isolation of human stool metagenomic DNA is fairly standardized, the same protocol does not work as efficiently in fecal DNA from other organisms. In this study, we report a comparison of manual and commercial DNA extraction methods for diverse samples such as human stool, fish gut and soil. Fishes are known to have variable microbial diversity based on their food habits, so the study included two different varieties of fishes. A modified protocol for effective isolation of metagenomic DNA from human milk samples is also reported, highlighting critical precautions. Recent studies have emphasized the importance of studying functionality of human milk metagenome to understand its influence on infants’ health. While manual method works well with most samples and therefore can be a method of choice for testing new samples, broad-range commercial kit offers advantage of high purity and quality. DNA extraction of different samples would go a long way in unraveling the unexplored association between microbes and host in a biological system.

Keywords

Metagenomic DNA Stool Fecal Milk Fish gut Soil 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the volunteers who provided samples and the staff at Maulana Azad Medical College and Associated Hospital. This work was funded by SERB (JC Bose research fellowship to YS). This work was supported by Brain Pool grant (NRF-2019H1D3A2A01060226) by National Research Foundation (NRF), South Korea to work at Konkuk University (VCK). This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program (2013M3A6A8073184) through the NRF funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, South Korea (JKL). The work was also supported by Science and Engineering Research Board (GIA/3186/2019-20). The funding organization had no role in the study design or manuscript preparation.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Ethical Standard

All procedures performed in the study involving human samples were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institute.

References

  1. 1.
    Cavalier-Smith T, Brasier M, Embley TM (2006) Introduction: how and when did microbes change the world? Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 361:845–850.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.1847 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kalia VC (2015) Microbes: the most friendly beings? In: Kalia VC (ed) Quorum sensing vs quorum quenching: a battle with no end in sight. Springer, New Delhi, pp 1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-1982-8_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kalia VC, Raju SC, Purohit HJ (2011) Genomic analysis reveals versatile organisms for quorum quenching enzymes: acyl-homoserine lactone-acylase and-lactonase. Open Microbiol J 5:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.2174/1874285801105010001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kalia VC (2014) In search of versatile organisms for quorum-sensing inhibitors: acyl homoserine lactones (AHL)-acylase and AHL-lactonase. FEMS Microbiol Lett 359:143.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1574-6968.12585 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Diaz S, Purvis A, Cornelissen JH, Mace GM, Donoghue MJ, Ewers RM, Jordano P, Pearse WD (2013) Functional traits, the phylogeny of function, and ecosystem service vulnerability. Ecol Evol 3:2958–2975.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.601 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kalia VC (2017) Mining metagenomes for novel bioactive molecules. In: Kalia VC, Shouche Y, Purohit HJ, Rahi P (eds) Mining of microbial wealth and metagenomics. Springer, Singapore, pp 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5708-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Purohit HJ, Tikariha H, Kalia VC (2018) Current scenario on application of computational tools in biological systems. In: Purohit HJ, Kalia VC, More RP (eds) Soft computing for biological systems. Springer, Singapore, pp 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7455-4_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Misra R, Virmani R, Dhakan D, Maji A (2017) Tackling the antibiotic resistance: the “gut” feeling. In: Arora G, Sajid A, Kalia VC (eds) Drug resistance in bacteria, fungi, malaria, and cancer. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 325–338.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48683-3_14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Singh A, Gaur M, Misra R (2018) Understanding the connect of quorum sensing and CRISPR-Cas system: potential role in biotechnological applications. In: Kalia VC (ed) Quorum sensing and its biotechnological applications. Springer, Singapore, pp 231–247.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0848-2_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Purohit HJ, Khurana JP, Sharma R, Lal SK, Kalia VC (2008) Bacterial diversity, genomics and metagenomics. Indian J Microbiol 48:151.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12088-008-0029-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sharma P, Kumari H, Kumar M, Verma M, Kumari K, Malhotra S, Khurana J, Lal R (2008) From bacterial genomics to metagenomics: concept, tools and recent advances. Indian J Microbiol 48:173–194.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12088-008-0031-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bag S, Saha B, Mehta O, Anbumani D, Kumar N, Dayal M, Pant A, Kumar P, Saxena S, Allin KH, Hansen T (2016) An improved method for high quality metagenomics DNA extraction from human and environmental samples. Sci Rep 6:26775.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep26775 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lima SF, Bicalho MLS, Bicalho RC (2018) Evaluation of milk sample fractions for characterization of milk microbiota from healthy and clinical mastitis cows. PLoS One 13:e0193671.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193671 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Talwar C, Nagar S, Lal R, Negi RK (2018) Fish gut microbiome: current approaches and future perspectives. Indian J Microbiol 58:397–414.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12088-018-0760-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Knudsen BE, Bergmark L, Munk P, Lukjancenko O, Prieme A, Aarestrup FM, Pamp SJ (2016) Impact of sample type and DNA isolation procedure on genomic inference of microbiome composition. mSystems 1:e00095-16.  https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00095-16 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boers SA, Jansen R, Hays JP (2019) Understanding and overcoming the pitfalls and biases of next-generation sequencing (NGS) methods for use in the routine clinical microbiological diagnostic laboratory. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 38:1059–1070.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-019-03520-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lim MY, Song EJ, Kim SH, Lee J, Nam YD (2018) Comparison of DNA extraction methods for human gut microbial community profiling. Syst Appl Microbiol 41:151–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.syapm.2017.11.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Verma SK, Singh H, Sharma PC (2017) An improved method suitable for isolation of high-quality metagenomic DNA from diverse soils. 3 Biotech 7:171.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-017-0847-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maji A, Misra R, Dhakan DB, Gupta V, Mahato NK, Saxena R, Mittal P, Thukral N, Sharma E, Singh A, Virmani R, Gaur M, Singh H, Hasija Y, Arora G, Agrawal A, Chaudhry A, Khurana JP, Sharma VK, Lal R, Singh Y (2018) Gut microbiome contributes to impairment of immunity in pulmonary tuberculosis patients by alteration of butyrate and propionate producers. Environ Microbiol 20:402–419.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.14015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Salonen A, Nikkila J, Jalanka-Tuovinen J, Immonen O, Rajilic-Stojanovic M, Kekkonen RA, Palva A, de Vos WM (2010) Comparative analysis of fecal DNA extraction methods with phylogenetic microarray: effective recovery of bacterial and archaeal DNA using mechanical cell lysis. J Microbiol Methods 81:127–134.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2010.02.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pollock J, Glendinning L, Wisedchanwet T, Watson M (2018) The madness of microbiome: attempting to find consensus “best practice” for 16S microbiome studies. Appl Environ Microbiol 84:e02627-17.  https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.02627-17 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dahlberg J, Sun L, Waller KP, Östensson K, McGuire M, Agenäs S, Dicksved J (2019) Microbiota data from low biomass milk samples is markedly affected by laboratory and reagent contamination. PLoS One 14:e0218257.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218257 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brooks JP, Edwards DJ, Harwich MD, Rivera MC, Fettweis JM, Serrano MG, Reris RA, Sheth NU, Huang B, Girerd P, Strauss JF (2015) The truth about metagenomics: quantifying and counteracting bias in 16S rRNA studies. BMC Microbiol 15:66.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-015-0351-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    El-Ashram S, Al Nasr I, Suo X (2016) Nucleic acid protocols: extraction and optimization. Biotechnol Rep 12:33–39.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.btre.2016.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ali N, Rampazzo RCP, Costa ADT, Krieger MA (2017) Current nucleic acid extraction methods and their implications to point-of-care diagnostics. Biomed Res Int 2017:9306564.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9306564 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lauder AP, Roche AM, Sherrill-Mix S, Bailey A, Laughlin AL, Bittinger K, Leite R, Elovitz MA, Parry S, Bushman FD (2016) Comparison of placenta samples with contamination controls does not provide evidence for a distinct placenta microbiota. Microbiome 4:29.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bhushan A, Mukherjee T, Joshi J, Shankar P, Kalia VC (2015) Insights into the origin of Clostridium botulinum strains: evolution of distinct restriction endonuclease sites in rrs (16S rRNA gene). Indian J Microbiol 55:140–150.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12088-015-0514-z CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Quigley L, O’Sullivan O, Beresford TP, Paul Ross R, Fitzgerald GF, Cotter PD (2012) A comparison of methods used to extract bacterial DNA from raw milk and raw milk cheese. J Appl Microbiol 113:96–105.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05294.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Eisenhofer R, Minich JJ, Marotz C, Cooper A, Knight R, Weyrich LS (2019) Contamination in low microbial biomass microbiome studies: issues and recommendations. Trends Microbiol 27:105–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2018.11.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vakhlu J, Sudan AK, Johri BN (2008) Metagenomics: future of microbial gene mining. Indian J Microbiol 48:202–215.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12088-008-0033-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Microbiologists of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of DelhiDelhiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Chemical EngineeringKonkuk UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Zoology, Sri Venkateswara CollegeUniversity of DelhiDelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations