title: Evaluation of Lysis Methods for the Extraction of Bacterial DNA for Analysis of the Vaginal Microbiota.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Recent studies on the vaginal microbiota have employed molecular techniques such as 16S rRNA gene sequencing to describe the bacterial community as a whole. These techniques require the lysis of bacterial cells to release DNA before purification and PCR amplification of the 16S rRNA gene. Currently, methods for the lysis of bacterial cells are not standardised and there is potential for introducing bias into the results if some bacterial species are lysed less efficiently than others. This study aimed to compare the results of vaginal microbiota profiling using four different pretreatment methods for the lysis of bacterial samples (30 min of lysis with lysozyme, 16 hours of lysis with lysozyme, 60 min of lysis with a mixture of lysozyme, mutanolysin and lysostaphin and 30 min of lysis with lysozyme followed by bead beating) prior to chemical and enzyme-based DNA extraction with a commercial kit.
  
  
  RESULTS
  After extraction, DNA yield did not significantly differ between methods with the exception of lysis with lysozyme combined with bead beating which produced significantly lower yields when compared to lysis with the enzyme cocktail or 30 min lysis with lysozyme only. However, this did not result in a statistically significant difference in the observed alpha diversity of samples. The beta diversity (Bray-Curtis dissimilarity) between different lysis methods was statistically significantly different, but this difference was small compared to differences between samples, and did not affect the grouping of samples with similar vaginal bacterial community structure by hierarchical clustering.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  An understanding of how laboratory methods affect the results of microbiota studies is vital in order to accurately interpret the results and make valid comparisons between studies. Our results indicate that the choice of lysis method does not prevent the detection of effects relating to the type of vaginal bacterial community one of the main outcome measures of epidemiological studies. However, we recommend that the same method is used on all samples within a particular study.
authors.affiliation: Institute of Infection & Global Health, University of Liverpool, 8 West Derby Street, Liverpool, Merseyside, L69 7BE, United Kingdom.
authors.forename: Christina
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Gill
authors.affiliation: Institute of Infection & Global Health, University of Liverpool, 8 West Derby Street, Liverpool, Merseyside, L69 7BE, United Kingdom.
authors.forename: Janneke H H M
authors.identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2728-4560
authors.initials: JH
authors.lastname: van de Wijgert
authors.affiliation: Institute of Integrative Biology and the Centre for Genomic Research, University of Liverpool, Biosciences Building, Crown Street, Liverpool, Merseyside, L69 7ZB, United Kingdom.
authors.forename: Frances
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Blow
authors.affiliation: Institute of Integrative Biology and the Centre for Genomic Research, University of Liverpool, Biosciences Building, Crown Street, Liverpool, Merseyside, L69 7ZB, United Kingdom.
authors.forename: Alistair C
authors.initials: AC
authors.lastname: Darby
mesh_terms: D001419:Bacteria / Q000235:genetics / Q000302:isolation & purification*; D004269:DNA, Bacterial / Q000032:analysis*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D064307:Microbiota / Q000235:genetics*; D014621:Vagina / Q000382:microbiology*
chemical_list: D004269:DNA, Bacterial