scholarly journals Utilizing field collected insects for next generation sequencing: Effects of sampling, storage, and DNA extraction methods

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (24) ◽  
pp. 13690-13705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly M. Ballare ◽  
Nathaniel S. Pope ◽  
Antonio R. Castilla ◽  
Sarah Cusser ◽  
Richard P. Metz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Next Generation Sequencing ◽  
Dna Extraction ◽  
Extraction Methods ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Dna Extraction Methods ◽  
Generation Sequencing

scholarly journals Assessing the Performance of Dried-Blood-Spot DNA Extraction Methods in Next Generation Sequencing

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miyono M. Hendrix ◽  
Carla D. Cuthbert ◽  
Suzanne K. Cordovado
Keyword(s):  
Cystic Fibrosis ◽  
Next Generation Sequencing ◽  
Newborn Screening ◽  
Dna Extraction ◽  
Technical Assistance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Extraction Methods ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Dna Extraction Methods ◽  
Generation Sequencing

An increasing number of newborn screening laboratories in the United States and abroad are moving towards incorporating next-generation sequencing technology, or NGS, into routine screening, particularly for cystic fibrosis. As more programs utilize this technology for both cystic fibrosis and beyond, it is critical to identify appropriate DNA extraction methods that can be used with dried blood spots that will result in consistent, high-quality sequencing results. To provide comprehensive quality assurance and technical assistance to newborn screening laboratories wishing to incorporate NGS assays, CDC’s Newborn Screening and Molecular Biology Branch designed a study to evaluate the performance of nine commercial or laboratory-developed DNA extraction methods that range from a highly purified column extraction to a crude detergent-based no-wash boil prep. The DNA from these nine methods was used in two NGS library preparations that interrogate the CFTR gene. All DNA extraction methods including the cruder preps performed reasonably well with both library preps. One lower-concentration, older sample was excluded from one of the assay evaluations due to poor performance across all DNA extraction methods. When 84 samples, versus eight, were run on a flow cell, the DNA quality and quantity were more significant variables.

scholarly journals Use of FFPE-derived DNA in next generation sequencing: DNA extraction methods

PLoS ONE ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. e0211400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha J. McDonough ◽  
Aditya Bhagwate ◽  
Zhifu Sun ◽  
Chen Wang ◽  
Michael Zschunke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Next Generation Sequencing ◽  
Dna Extraction ◽  
Extraction Methods ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Dna Extraction Methods ◽  
Generation Sequencing

scholarly journals Profiling soil microbial communities with next-generation sequencing: the influence of DNA kit selection and technician technical expertise

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taha Soliman ◽  
Sung-Yin Yang ◽  
Tomoko Yamazaki ◽  
Holger Jenke-Kodama
Keyword(s):  
Next Generation Sequencing ◽  
Microbial Communities ◽  
Dna Extraction ◽  
Dna Isolation ◽  
Soil Microbial Communities ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Microbial Composition ◽  
Okinawa Island ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Generation Sequencing

Structure and diversity of microbial communities are an important research topic in biology, since microbes play essential roles in the ecology of various environments. Different DNA isolation protocols can lead to data bias and can affect results of next-generation sequencing. To evaluate the impact of protocols for DNA isolation from soil samples and also the influence of individual handling of samples, we compared results obtained by two researchers (R and T) using two different DNA extraction kits: (1) MO BIO PowerSoil® DNA Isolation kit (MO_R and MO_T) and (2) NucleoSpin® Soil kit (MN_R and MN_T). Samples were collected from six different sites on Okinawa Island, Japan. For all sites, differences in the results of microbial composition analyses (bacteria, archaea, fungi, and other eukaryotes), obtained by the two researchers using the two kits, were analyzed. For both researchers, the MN kit gave significantly higher yields of genomic DNA at all sites compared to the MO kit (ANOVA; P <0.006). In addition, operational taxonomic units for some phyla and classes were missed in some cases: Micrarchaea were detected only in the MN_T and MO_R analyses; the bacterial phylum Armatimonadetes was detected only in MO_R and MO_T; and WIM5 of the phylum Amoebozoa of eukaryotes was found only in the MO_T analysis. Our results suggest the possibility of handling bias; therefore, it is crucial that replicated DNA extraction be performed by at least two technicians for thorough microbial analyses and to obtain accurate estimates of microbial diversity.

scholarly journals Profiling soil microbial communities with next-generation sequencing: the influence of DNA kit selection and technician technical expertise

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taha Soliman ◽  
Sung-Yin Yang ◽  
Tomoko Yamazaki ◽  
Holger Jenke-Kodama
Keyword(s):  
Next Generation Sequencing ◽  
Microbial Communities ◽  
Dna Extraction ◽  
Dna Isolation ◽  
Soil Microbial Communities ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Microbial Composition ◽  
Okinawa Island ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Generation Sequencing

Structure and diversity of microbial communities are an important research topic in biology, since microbes play essential roles in the ecology of various environments. Different DNA isolation protocols can lead to data bias and can affect results of next-generation sequencing. To evaluate the impact of protocols for DNA isolation from soil samples and also the influence of individual handling of samples, we compared results obtained by two researchers (R and T) using two different DNA extraction kits: (1) MO BIO PowerSoil® DNA Isolation kit (MO_R and MO_T) and (2) NucleoSpin® Soil kit (MN_R and MN_T). Samples were collected from six different sites on Okinawa Island, Japan. For all sites, differences in the results of microbial composition analyses (bacteria, archaea, fungi, and other eukaryotes), obtained by the two researchers using the two kits, were analyzed. For both researchers, the MN kit gave significantly higher yields of genomic DNA at all sites compared to the MO kit (ANOVA; P <0.006). In addition, operational taxonomic units for some phyla and classes were missed in some cases: Micrarchaea were detected only in the MN_T and MO_R analyses; the bacterial phylum Armatimonadetes was detected only in MO_R and MO_T; and WIM5 of the phylum Amoebozoa of eukaryotes was found only in the MO_T analysis. Our results suggest the possibility of handling bias; therefore, it is crucial that replicated DNA extraction be performed by at least two technicians for thorough microbial analyses and to obtain accurate estimates of microbial diversity.

scholarly journals P1.02-059 Evaluation of Plasma DNA Extraction, Droplet PCR and Droplet next Generation Sequencing Methods for Liquid Biopsy Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. S523-S524
Author(s):  
Lina Salleh ◽  
Michelle Rozario ◽  
Xue Qing Koh ◽  
Ross Soo ◽  
Richie Soong
Keyword(s):  
Next Generation Sequencing ◽  
Dna Extraction ◽  
Liquid Biopsy ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Plasma Dna ◽  
Droplet Pcr ◽  
Generation Sequencing

scholarly journals Profiling soil microbial communities with next-generation sequencing: the influence of DNA kit selection and technician technical expertise

PeerJ ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. e4178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taha Soliman ◽  
Sung-Yin Yang ◽  
Tomoko Yamazaki ◽  
Holger Jenke-Kodama
Keyword(s):  
Next Generation Sequencing ◽  
Microbial Communities ◽  
Dna Extraction ◽  
Dna Isolation ◽  
Soil Microbial Communities ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Microbial Composition ◽  
Okinawa Island ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Generation Sequencing

Structure and diversity of microbial communities are an important research topic in biology, since microbes play essential roles in the ecology of various environments. Different DNA isolation protocols can lead to data bias and can affect results of next-generation sequencing. To evaluate the impact of protocols for DNA isolation from soil samples and also the influence of individual handling of samples, we compared results obtained by two researchers (R and T) using two different DNA extraction kits: (1) MO BIO PowerSoil®DNA Isolation kit (MO_R and MO_T) and (2) NucleoSpin®Soil kit (MN_R and MN_T). Samples were collected from six different sites on Okinawa Island, Japan. For all sites, differences in the results of microbial composition analyses (bacteria, archaea, fungi, and other eukaryotes), obtained by the two researchers using the two kits, were analyzed. For both researchers, the MN kit gave significantly higher yields of genomic DNA at all sites compared to the MO kit (ANOVA;P < 0.006). In addition, operational taxonomic units for some phyla and classes were missed in some cases: Micrarchaea were detected only in the MN_T and MO_R analyses; the bacterial phylum Armatimonadetes was detected only in MO_R and MO_T; and WIM5 of the phylum Amoebozoa of eukaryotes was found only in the MO_T analysis. Our results suggest the possibility of handling bias; therefore, it is crucial that replicated DNA extraction be performed by at least two technicians for thorough microbial analyses and to obtain accurate estimates of microbial diversity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document