Comparative analysis of DNA extraction and PCR product purification methods for cervicovaginal microbiome analysis using cpn60 microbial profiling.
<h4>Background</h4>The microbiota of the lower female genital tract plays an important role in women's health. Microbial profiling using the chaperonin60 (cpn60) universal target (UT) improves resolution of vaginal species associated with negative health outcomes compared to the mor...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2022-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262355 |
| _version_ | 1819289073277206528 |
|---|---|
| author | Elinor Shvartsman Meika E I Richmond John J Schellenberg Alana Lamont Catia Perciani Justen N H Russell Vanessa Poliquin Adam Burgener Walter Jaoko Paul Sandstrom Kelly S MacDonald |
| author_facet | Elinor Shvartsman Meika E I Richmond John J Schellenberg Alana Lamont Catia Perciani Justen N H Russell Vanessa Poliquin Adam Burgener Walter Jaoko Paul Sandstrom Kelly S MacDonald |
| author_sort | Elinor Shvartsman |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <h4>Background</h4>The microbiota of the lower female genital tract plays an important role in women's health. Microbial profiling using the chaperonin60 (cpn60) universal target (UT) improves resolution of vaginal species associated with negative health outcomes compared to the more commonly used 16S ribosomal DNA target. However, the choice of DNA extraction and PCR product purification methods may bias sequencing-based microbial studies and should be optimized for the sample type and molecular target used. In this study, we compared two commercial DNA extraction kits and two commercial PCR product purification kits for the microbial profiling of cervicovaginal samples using the cpn60 UT.<h4>Methods</h4>DNA from cervicovaginal secretions and vaginal lavage samples as well as mock community standards were extracted using either the specialized QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit, or the standard DNeasy Blood & Tissue kit with enzymatic pre-treatment for enhanced lysis of gram-positive bacteria. Extracts were PCR amplified using well-established cpn60 primer sets and conditions. Products were then purified using a column-based method (QIAquick PCR Purification Kit) or a gel-based PCR clean-up method using the QIAEX II Gel Extraction Kit. Purified amplicons were sequenced with the MiSeq platform using standard procedures. The overall quality of each method was evaluated by measuring DNA yield, alpha diversity, and microbial composition.<h4>Results</h4>DNA extracted from cervicovaginal samples using the DNeasy Blood and Tissue kit, pre-treated with lysozyme and mutanolysin, resulted in increased DNA yield, bacterial diversity, and species representation compared to the QIAamp DNA Microbiome kit. The column-based PCR product purification approach also resulted in greater average DNA yield and wider species representation compared to a gel-based clean-up method. In conclusion, this study presents a fast, effective sample preparation method for high resolution cpn60 based microbial profiling of cervicovaginal samples. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-24T03:01:03Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-8b853e8ea43e49be8095d05cd9156856 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-24T03:01:03Z |
| publishDate | 2022-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj.art-8b853e8ea43e49be8095d05cd91568562022-12-21T17:18:11ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032022-01-01171e026235510.1371/journal.pone.0262355Comparative analysis of DNA extraction and PCR product purification methods for cervicovaginal microbiome analysis using cpn60 microbial profiling.Elinor ShvartsmanMeika E I RichmondJohn J SchellenbergAlana LamontCatia PercianiJusten N H RussellVanessa PoliquinAdam BurgenerWalter JaokoPaul SandstromKelly S MacDonald<h4>Background</h4>The microbiota of the lower female genital tract plays an important role in women's health. Microbial profiling using the chaperonin60 (cpn60) universal target (UT) improves resolution of vaginal species associated with negative health outcomes compared to the more commonly used 16S ribosomal DNA target. However, the choice of DNA extraction and PCR product purification methods may bias sequencing-based microbial studies and should be optimized for the sample type and molecular target used. In this study, we compared two commercial DNA extraction kits and two commercial PCR product purification kits for the microbial profiling of cervicovaginal samples using the cpn60 UT.<h4>Methods</h4>DNA from cervicovaginal secretions and vaginal lavage samples as well as mock community standards were extracted using either the specialized QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit, or the standard DNeasy Blood & Tissue kit with enzymatic pre-treatment for enhanced lysis of gram-positive bacteria. Extracts were PCR amplified using well-established cpn60 primer sets and conditions. Products were then purified using a column-based method (QIAquick PCR Purification Kit) or a gel-based PCR clean-up method using the QIAEX II Gel Extraction Kit. Purified amplicons were sequenced with the MiSeq platform using standard procedures. The overall quality of each method was evaluated by measuring DNA yield, alpha diversity, and microbial composition.<h4>Results</h4>DNA extracted from cervicovaginal samples using the DNeasy Blood and Tissue kit, pre-treated with lysozyme and mutanolysin, resulted in increased DNA yield, bacterial diversity, and species representation compared to the QIAamp DNA Microbiome kit. The column-based PCR product purification approach also resulted in greater average DNA yield and wider species representation compared to a gel-based clean-up method. In conclusion, this study presents a fast, effective sample preparation method for high resolution cpn60 based microbial profiling of cervicovaginal samples.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262355 |
| spellingShingle | Elinor Shvartsman Meika E I Richmond John J Schellenberg Alana Lamont Catia Perciani Justen N H Russell Vanessa Poliquin Adam Burgener Walter Jaoko Paul Sandstrom Kelly S MacDonald Comparative analysis of DNA extraction and PCR product purification methods for cervicovaginal microbiome analysis using cpn60 microbial profiling. PLoS ONE |
| title | Comparative analysis of DNA extraction and PCR product purification methods for cervicovaginal microbiome analysis using cpn60 microbial profiling. |
| title_full | Comparative analysis of DNA extraction and PCR product purification methods for cervicovaginal microbiome analysis using cpn60 microbial profiling. |
| title_fullStr | Comparative analysis of DNA extraction and PCR product purification methods for cervicovaginal microbiome analysis using cpn60 microbial profiling. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparative analysis of DNA extraction and PCR product purification methods for cervicovaginal microbiome analysis using cpn60 microbial profiling. |
| title_short | Comparative analysis of DNA extraction and PCR product purification methods for cervicovaginal microbiome analysis using cpn60 microbial profiling. |
| title_sort | comparative analysis of dna extraction and pcr product purification methods for cervicovaginal microbiome analysis using cpn60 microbial profiling |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262355 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT elinorshvartsman comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionandpcrproductpurificationmethodsforcervicovaginalmicrobiomeanalysisusingcpn60microbialprofiling AT meikaeirichmond comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionandpcrproductpurificationmethodsforcervicovaginalmicrobiomeanalysisusingcpn60microbialprofiling AT johnjschellenberg comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionandpcrproductpurificationmethodsforcervicovaginalmicrobiomeanalysisusingcpn60microbialprofiling AT alanalamont comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionandpcrproductpurificationmethodsforcervicovaginalmicrobiomeanalysisusingcpn60microbialprofiling AT catiaperciani comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionandpcrproductpurificationmethodsforcervicovaginalmicrobiomeanalysisusingcpn60microbialprofiling AT justennhrussell comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionandpcrproductpurificationmethodsforcervicovaginalmicrobiomeanalysisusingcpn60microbialprofiling AT vanessapoliquin comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionandpcrproductpurificationmethodsforcervicovaginalmicrobiomeanalysisusingcpn60microbialprofiling AT adamburgener comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionandpcrproductpurificationmethodsforcervicovaginalmicrobiomeanalysisusingcpn60microbialprofiling AT walterjaoko comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionandpcrproductpurificationmethodsforcervicovaginalmicrobiomeanalysisusingcpn60microbialprofiling AT paulsandstrom comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionandpcrproductpurificationmethodsforcervicovaginalmicrobiomeanalysisusingcpn60microbialprofiling AT kellysmacdonald comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionandpcrproductpurificationmethodsforcervicovaginalmicrobiomeanalysisusingcpn60microbialprofiling |