Skip to content
1887

Access Microbiology open research platform logo Access Microbiology

Volume 6, Issue 9

Comparative evaluation of soil DNA extraction kits for long read metagenomic sequencing Open Access

Abstract

Metagenomics has been transformative in our understanding of the diversity and function of soil microbial communities. Applying long read sequencing to whole genome shotgun metagenomics has the potential to revolutionise soil microbial ecology through improved taxonomic classification, functional characterisation and metagenome assembly. However, optimisation of robust methods for long read metagenomics of environmental samples remains undeveloped. In this study, Oxford Nanopore sequencing using samples from five commercially available soil DNA extraction kits was compared across four soil types, in order to optimise read length and reproducibility for comparative long read soil metagenomics. Average extracted DNA lengths varied considerably between kits, but longer DNA fragments did not translate consistently into read lengths. Highly variable decreases in the length of resulting reads from some kits were associated with poor classification rate and low reproducibility in microbial communities identified between technical repeats. Replicate samples from other kits showed more consistent conversion of extracted DNA fragment size into read length and resulted in more congruous microbial community representation. Furthermore, extraction kits showed significant differences in the community representation and structure they identified across all soil types. Overall, the QIAGEN DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit displayed the best suitability for reproducible long-read WGS metagenomic sequencing, although further optimisation of DNA purification and library preparation may enable translation of higher molecular weight DNA from other kits into longer read lengths. These findings provide a novel insight into the importance of optimising DNA extraction for achieving replicable results from long read metagenomic sequencing of environmental samples.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): DNA extraction , long-read sequencing , metagenomics , microbiome , Oxford nanopore and soil
Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Shell United Kingdom (Award CW648947)
    • Principle Award Recipient: RichardK. Tennant
© 2024 The Authors
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. This article was made open access via a Publish and Read agreement between the Microbiology Society and the corresponding author’s institution.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000868.v3
2024-09-27
2025-07-10
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/acmi/6/9/acmi000868.v3.html?itemId=/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000868.v3&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Thompson LR, Sanders JG, McDonald D, Amir A, Ladau J et al. A communal catalogue reveals Earth’s multiscale microbial diversity. Nature 2017; 551:457–463 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Labouyrie M, Ballabio C, Romero F, Panagos P, Jones A et al. Patterns in soil microbial diversity across Europe. Nat Commun 2023; 14:3311 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Sáez-Sandino T, García-Palacios P, Maestre FT, Plaza C, Guirado E et al. The soil microbiome governs the response of microbial respiration to warming across the globe. Nat Clim Chang 2023; 13:1382–1387 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Delgado-Baquerizo M, Reich PB, Trivedi C, Eldridge DJ, Abades S et al. Multiple elements of soil biodiversity drive ecosystem functions across biomes. Nat Ecol Evol 2020; 4:210–220 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Fierer N. Embracing the unknown: disentangling the complexities of the soil microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol 2017; 15:579–590 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Crits-Christoph A, Diamond S, Butterfield CN, Thomas BC, Banfield JF. Novel soil bacteria possess diverse genes for secondary metabolite biosynthesis. Nature 2018; 558:440–444 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bodor A, Bounedjoum N, Vincze GE, Erdeiné Kis Á, Laczi K et al. Challenges of unculturable bacteria: environmental perspectives. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 2020; 19:1–22 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Jansson JK, McClure R, Egbert RG. Soil microbiome engineering for sustainability in a changing environment. Nat Biotechnol 2023; 41:1716–1728 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Lombard N, Prestat E, van Elsas JD, Simonet P. Soil-specific limitations for access and analysis of soil microbial communities by metagenomics. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2011; 78:31–49 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Tennant RK, Power AL, Burton SK, Sinclair N, Parker DA et al. In-situ sequencing reveals the effect of storage on lacustrine sediment microbiome demographics and functionality. Environ Microbiome 2022; 17:5 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Lane JM, Delavaux CS, Van Koppen L, Lu P, Cade-Menun BJ et al. Soil sample storage conditions impact extracellular enzyme activity and bacterial amplicon diversity metrics in a semi-arid ecosystem. Soil Biol Biochem 2022; 175:108858 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Zielińska S, Radkowski P, Blendowska A, Ludwig-Gałęzowska A, Łoś JM et al. The choice of the DNA extraction method may influence the outcome of the soil microbial community structure analysis. Microbiologyopen 2017; 6:e00453 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Johnson JS, Spakowicz DJ, Hong B-Y, Petersen LM, Demkowicz P et al. Evaluation of 16S rRNA gene sequencing for species and strain-level microbiome analysis. Nat Commun 2019; 10:5029 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Sze MA, Schloss PD. The impact of DNA polymerase and number of rounds of amplification in PCR on 16S rRNA gene sequence data. mSphere 2019; 4:e00163-19 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Wright RJ, Comeau AM, Langille MGI. From defaults to databases: parameter and database choice dramatically impact the performance of metagenomic taxonomic classification tools. Microb Genom 2023; 9: [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Morgan JL, Darling AE, Eisen JA. Metagenomic sequencing of an in vitro-simulated microbial community. PLoS One 2010; 5:e10209 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Iturbe-Espinoza P, Brandt BW, Braster M, Bonte M, Brown DM et al. Effects of DNA preservation solution and DNA extraction methods on microbial community profiling of soil. Folia Microbiol 2021; 66:597–606 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Albers CN, Jensen A, Bælum J, Jacobsen CS. Inhibition of DNA polymerases used in Q-PCR by structurally different soil-derived humic substances. Geomicrobiol J 2013; 30:675–681 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Lakay FM, Botha A, Prior BA. Comparative analysis of environmental DNA extraction and purification methods from different humic acid-rich soils. J Appl Microbiol 2007; 102:265–273 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Quince C, Walker AW, Simpson JT, Loman NJ, Segata N. Shotgun metagenomics, from sampling to analysis. Nat Biotechnol 2017; 35:833–844 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Machado D, Andrejev S, Tramontano M, Patil KR. Fast automated reconstruction of genome-scale metabolic models for microbial species and communities. Nucleic Acids Res 2018; 46:7542–7553 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Scholz M, Ward DV, Pasolli E, Tolio T, Zolfo M et al. Strain-level microbial epidemiology and population genomics from shotgun metagenomics. Nat Methods 2016; 13:435–438 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Ma B, Lu C, Wang Y, Yu J, Zhao K et al. A genomic catalogue of soil microbiomes boosts mining of biodiversity and genetic resources. Nat Commun 2023; 14:7318 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Tedersoo L, Bahram M, Põlme S, Kõljalg U, Yorou NS et al. Global diversity and geography of soil fungi. Science 2014; 346:1256688 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Jansson JK. Soil viruses: understudied agents of soil ecology. Environ Microbiol 2023; 25:143–146 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Chen L, Zhao N, Cao J, Liu X, Xu J et al. Short- and long-read metagenomics expand individualized structural variations in gut microbiomes. Nat Commun 2022; 13:3175 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Portik DM, Brown CT, Pierce-Ward NT. Evaluation of taxonomic classification and profiling methods for long-read shotgun metagenomic sequencing datasets. BMC Bioinform 2022; 23:541 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Liu L, Yang Y, Deng Y, Zhang T. Nanopore long-read-only metagenomics enables complete and high-quality genome reconstruction from mock and complex metagenomes. Microbiome 2022; 10:209 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Pearman WS, Freed NE, Silander OK. Testing the advantages and disadvantages of short- and long- read eukaryotic metagenomics using simulated reads. BMC Bioinform 2020; 21:220 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Sereika M, Kirkegaard RH, Karst SM, Michaelsen TY, Sørensen EA et al. Oxford nanopore R10.4 long-read sequencing enables the generation of near-finished bacterial genomes from pure cultures and metagenomes without short-read or reference polishing. Nat Methods 2022; 19:823–826 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Krehenwinkel H, Pomerantz A, Henderson JB, Kennedy SR, Lim JY et al. Nanopore sequencing of long ribosomal DNA amplicons enables portable and simple biodiversity assessments with high phylogenetic resolution across broad taxonomic scale. GigaScience 2019; 8:giz006 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Kerkhof LJ. Is Oxford nanopore sequencing ready for analyzing complex microbiomes?. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2021; 97:fiab001 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Wüst PK, Nacke H, Kaiser K, Marhan S, Sikorski J et al. Estimates of soil bacterial ribosome content and diversity are significantly affected by the nucleic acid extraction method employed. Appl Environ Microbiol 2016; 82:2595–2607 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Shen W, Le S, Li Y, Hu F. SeqKit: a cross-platform and ultrafast toolkit for FASTA/Q file manipulation. PLoS One 2016; 11:e0163962 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Buchfink B, Reuter K, Drost HG. Sensitive protein alignments at tree-of-life scale using DIAMOND. Nat Methods 2021; 18:366–368 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Huson DH, Beier S, Flade I, Górska A, El-Hadidi M et al. MEGAN community edition - interactive exploration and analysis of large-scale microbiome sequencing data. PLoS Comput Biol 2016; 12:e1004957 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Bağcı C, Patz S, Huson DH. DIAMOND+MEGAN: fast and easy taxonomic and functional analysis of short and long microbiome sequences. Curr Protoc 2021; 1:e59 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Dixon P. VEGAN, a package of R functions for community ecology. J Veget Sci 2003; 14:927–930 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Bakker JD. Complex models. In Applied Multivariate Statistics in R University of Washington; 2024 pp 188–200
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Peddada S, Lin H. Multi-group analysis of compositions of microbiomes with covariate adjustments and repeated measures. Review 2023 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Da Silva RR, Lucena GN, Machado ÂF, De Freitas GA, Matos AT et al. Spectroscopic and elementary characterization of humic substances in organic substrates. Com Sci 2018; 9:264–274 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Kielak AM, Barreto CC, Kowalchuk GA, van Veen JA, Kuramae EE. The ecology of acidobacteria: moving beyond genes and genomes. Front Microbiol 2016; 7:744 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Bergmann GT, Bates ST, Eilers KG, Lauber CL, Caporaso JG et al. The under-recognized dominance of Verrucomicrobia in soil bacterial communities. Soil Biol Biochem 2011; 43:1450–1455 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Fehrer J, Réblová M, Bambasová V, Vohník M. The root-symbiotic rhizoscyphus ericae aggregate and hyaloscypha (leotiomycetes) are congeneric: phylogenetic and experimental evidence. Stud Mycol 2019; 92:195–225
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Wesolowska-Andersen A, Bahl MI, Carvalho V, Kristiansen K, Sicheritz-Pontén T et al. Choice of bacterial DNA extraction method from fecal material influences community structure as evaluated by metagenomic analysis. Microbiome 2014; 2:19 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Demkina A, Slonova D, Mamontov V, Konovalova O, Yurikova D et al. Benchmarking DNA isolation methods for marine metagenomics. Sci Rep 2023; 13:22138 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Hjelmsø MH, Hellmér M, Fernandez-Cassi X, Timoneda N, Lukjancenko O et al. Evaluation of methods for the concentration and extraction of viruses from sewage in the context of metagenomic sequencing. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0170199 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  48. de Goffau MC, Charnock-Jones DS, Smith GCS, Parkhill J. Batch effects account for the main findings of an in utero human intestinal bacterial colonization study. Microbiome 2021; 9:6 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Soliman T, Yang SY, Yamazaki T, Jenke-Kodama H. Profiling soil microbial communities with next-generation sequencing: the influence of DNA kit selection and technician technical expertise. PeerJ 2017; 5:e4178 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Shaffer JP, Carpenter CS, Martino C, Salido RA, Minich JJ et al. A comparison of six DNA extraction protocols for 16S, ITS and shotgun metagenomic sequencing of microbial communities. Biotechniques 2022; 73:34–46 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Changey F, Blaud A, Pando A, Herrmann AM, Lerch TZ. Monitoring soil microbial communities using molecular tools: DNA extraction methods may offset long‐term management effects. Eur J Soil Sci 2021; 72:1026–1041 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Zhang L, Chen T, Wang Y, Zhang S, Lv Q et al. Comparison analysis of different DNA extraction methods on suitability for long-read metagenomic nanopore sequencing. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2022; 12:919903 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Fredricks DN, Smith C, Meier A. Comparison of six DNA extraction methods for recovery of fungal DNA as assessed by quantitative PCR. J Clin Microbiol 2005; 43:5122–5128 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Quick J. The ‘Three Peaks’ faecal DNA extraction method for long-read sequencing v2; 2019 https://www.protocols.click/view/the-39-three-peaks-39-faecal-dna-extraction-method-7rshm6e accessed 30 July 2024
  55. Vishnivetskaya TA, Layton AC, Lau MCY, Chauhan A, Cheng KR et al. Commercial DNA extraction kits impact observed microbial community composition in permafrost samples. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2014; 87:217–230 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Xie K, Deng Y, Zhang X, Wang X, Kang G et al. Biases in prokaryotic community amplicon sequencing affected by DNA extraction methods in both saline and non-saline soil. Front Microbiol 2018; 9:1796 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Sakai Y. Improvements in extraction methods of high-molecular-weight DNA from soils by modifying cell lysis conditions and reducing adsorption of DNA onto soil particles. Microbes Environ 2021; 36:ME21017 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Bürgmann H, Pesaro M, Widmer F, Zeyer J. A strategy for optimizing quality and quantity of DNA extracted from soil. J Microbiol Methods 2001; 45:7–20 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Yoo HB, Lim HM, Yang I, Kim SK, Park SR. Flow cytometric investigation on degradation of macro-DNA by common laboratory manipulations. JBPC 2011; 02:102–111 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Klingström T, Bongcam-Rudloff E, Pettersson OV. A comprehensive model of DNA fragmentation for the preservation of High Molecular Weight DNA. bioRxiv; 2018 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/254276v3 accessed 28 February 2024
  61. Opel KL, Chung D, McCord BR. A study of PCR inhibition mechanisms using real time PCR. J Forensic Sci 2010; 55:25–33 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000868.v3
Loading
Comparative evaluation of soil DNA extraction kits for long read metagenomic sequencing
Access Microbiology 6, 000868.v3 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1099/acmi.0.000868.v3
/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000868.v3
/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000868.v3
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error