title: Effect of DNA extraction methods and sampling techniques on the apparent structure of cow and sheep rumen microbial communities.
abstract: Molecular microbial ecology techniques are widely used to study the composition of the rumen microbiota and to increase understanding of the roles they play. Therefore, sampling and DNA extraction methods that result in adequate yields of microbial DNA that also accurately represents the microbial community are crucial. Fifteen different methods were used to extract DNA from cow and sheep rumen samples. The DNA yield and quality, and its suitability for downstream PCR amplifications varied considerably, depending on the DNA extraction method used. DNA extracts from nine extraction methods that passed these first quality criteria were evaluated further by quantitative PCR enumeration of microbial marker loci. Absolute microbial numbers, determined on the same rumen samples, differed by more than 100-fold, depending on the DNA extraction method used. The apparent compositions of the archaeal, bacterial, ciliate protozoal, and fungal communities in identical rumen samples were assessed using 454 Titanium pyrosequencing. Significant differences in microbial community composition were observed between extraction methods, for example in the relative abundances of members of the phyla Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes. Microbial communities in parallel samples collected from cows by oral stomach-tubing or through a rumen fistula, and in liquid and solid rumen digesta fractions, were compared using one of the DNA extraction methods. Community representations were generally similar, regardless of the rumen sampling technique used, but significant differences in the abundances of some microbial taxa such as the Clostridiales and the Methanobrevibacter ruminantium clade were observed. The apparent microbial community composition differed between rumen sample fractions, and Prevotellaceae were most abundant in the liquid fraction. DNA extraction methods that involved phenol-chloroform extraction and mechanical lysis steps tended to be more comparable. However, comparison of data from studies in which different sampling techniques, different rumen sample fractions or different DNA extraction methods were used should be avoided.
authors.affiliation: AgResearch Ltd, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
authors.forename: Gemma
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Henderson
authors.forename: Faith
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Cox
authors.forename: Sandra
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Kittelmann
authors.forename: Vahideh Heidarian
authors.initials: VH
authors.lastname: Miri
authors.forename: Michael
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Zethof
authors.forename: Samantha J
authors.initials: SJ
authors.lastname: Noel
authors.forename: Garry C
authors.initials: GC
authors.lastname: Waghorn
authors.forename: Peter H
authors.initials: PH
authors.lastname: Janssen
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D002417:Cattle / Q000382:microbiology; D004247:DNA / Q000302:isolation & purification*; D004463:Ecology; D059013:Microbial Consortia; D010802:Phylogeny; D016133:Polymerase Chain Reaction; D025341:Principal Component Analysis; D012417:Rumen / Q000382:microbiology*; D017422:Sequence Analysis, DNA / Q000379:methods*; D012756:Sheep / Q000382:microbiology
chemical_list: D004247:DNA
references.citation: Syst Appl Microbiol. 2010 Mar;33(2):78-84
references.pmid: 20097028
references.citation: J Forensic Sci. 2006 Jul;51(4):795-804
references.pmid: 16882221
references.citation: Biotechniques. 2004 May;36(5):808-12
references.pmid: 15152600
references.citation: PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e47879
references.pmid: 23408926
references.citation: Environ Microbiol. 2004 Jan;6(1):73-8
references.pmid: 14686943
references.citation: Microb Ecol. 2011 Feb;61(2):353-62
references.pmid: 21153634
references.citation: J Anim Sci. 2009 Jul;87(7):2333-7
references.pmid: 19329475
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008 Jun;74(12):3619-25
references.pmid: 18424540
references.citation: Environ Microbiol. 2012 Jan;14(1):207-27
references.pmid: 22004549
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e34605
references.pmid: 22514642
references.citation: J Microbiol Methods. 1999 Dec;39(1):1-16
references.pmid: 10579502
references.citation: FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2011 Nov;78(2):256-65
references.pmid: 21671962
references.citation: Microb Ecol. 2010 Apr;59(3):511-22
references.pmid: 20037795
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 2012 Oct;95(10):5978-84
references.pmid: 22921624
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e48289
references.pmid: 23144861
references.citation: Nat Methods. 2010 May;7(5):335-6
references.pmid: 20383131
references.citation: J Microbiol Methods. 2010 May;81(2):127-34
references.pmid: 20171997
references.citation: J Microbiol Methods. 2002 Jul;50(2):131-9
references.pmid: 11997164
references.citation: FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2011 Mar;75(3):468-81
references.pmid: 21204869
references.citation: Nutr J. 2010 May 22;9:23
references.pmid: 20492702
references.citation: FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2011 May;76(2):311-26
references.pmid: 21255054
references.citation: ISME J. 2012 Mar;6(3):610-8
references.pmid: 22134646
references.citation: FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2011 Apr;76(1):49-63
references.pmid: 21223325
references.citation: Environ Monit Assess. 1996 Sep;42(1-2):133-41
references.pmid: 24193497
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36866
references.pmid: 22615827
references.citation: PLoS One. 2009 Sep 17;4(9):e7063
references.pmid: 19759898
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 2012 Sep;95(9):5024-5034
references.pmid: 22916906
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012 Dec;78(23):8245-53
references.pmid: 23001661
references.citation: J Mol Biol. 1990 Oct 5;215(3):403-10
references.pmid: 2231712
references.citation: BMC Res Notes. 2012 Dec 03;5:668
references.pmid: 23206278
references.citation: J Eukaryot Microbiol. 1997 Jan-Feb;44(1):61-7
references.pmid: 9172834