JMB-HEADER RAS-JOURNALS EIMB Pleiades Publishing

RUS

             

ENG

YearIMPACT-FACTOR
2024  1,200
2023  1,500
2022  1,200
2021  1,540
2020  1,374
2019  1,023
2018  0,932
2017  0,977
2016  0,799
2015  0,662
2014  0,740
2013  0,739
2012  0,637
2011  0,658
2010  0,654
2009  0,570
2008  0,849
2007  0,805
2006  0,330
2005  0,435
2004  0,623
2003  0,567
2002  0,641
2001  0,490
2000  0,477
1999  0,762
1998  0,785
1997  0,507
1996  0,518
1995  0,502
Vol 59(2025) N 6 p. 1119-1135; DOI 10.1134/S0026893325700517 Full Text

A.S. Kurnosov1,2, N.N. Linde1,3, P.A. Molodtsova1, E.V. Glazunova1, A.M. Moskalenko1, A.F. Sheptulina4, N.A. Bodunova5, O.A. Zlobovskaya1*

Comparative Evaluation of DNA Extraction Methods from Fecal Samples: Statistical Analysis of Commercial Kits and Laboratory Protocols Using Real-Time PCR Data

1Centre for Strategic Planning and Management of Biomedical Health Risks, Federal Medical-Biological Agency, Moscow, 119121 Russia
2Emanuel Institute of Biochemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 119334 Russia
3Morozov Children's Urban Clinical Hospital, Moscow, 119049 Russia
4National Medical Research Center for Therapy and Preventive Medicine, Moscow, 101990 Russia
5The Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow, 111123 Russia


*ozlobovskaya@cspfmba.ru
Received - 2025-04-04; Revised - 2025-05-22; Accepted - 2025-06-10

The emergence of new data on the association between the composition of the intestinal microbiota and various human diseases has generated increasing interest in microbiome research. In this context, selection of the DNA extraction method represents a critical stage in the design of the experiment, significantly affecting the reliability and reproducibility of results. This study presents a comparative analysis of 12 DNA extraction methods, including nine commercial kits and three laboratory protocols. We evaluated the taxonomic representation, including Gram-positive (Lactobacillaceae, Coprococcus spp., Streptococcus sp., Clostridium leptum) and Gram-negative bacteria (Enterobacteriaceae, Akkermansia muciniphila, Fusobacterium nucleatum, Bacteroides fragilis). The extraction efficiency was assessed by the DNA yield, expressed in GE/pL of eluate or in GE/g of feces, as well as by the frequency of low-abundance taxa loss. Clustering of the methods according to the type of lysis was demonstrated: mechanical lysis provided stable and high DNA yields, particularly for Gram-positive bacteria, while chemical and enzymatic methods showed lower efficiency. We determined that the lysis type and pre-processing of intact fecal samples are the key factors affecting the DNA extraction efficiency and preservation of the native taxonomic profile. The best results were demonstrated by the QIAamp® PowerFecal® Pro DNA Kit (Qiagen) and the combination of AmpliTest UniProb + AmpliTest RIBO-prep kits (Center for Strategic Planning, Federal Medical-Biological Agency, Russia), both of which outperformed other methods in terms of DNA yield. The QIAamp® Fast DNA Stool Mini Kit (Qiagen) showed minimal losses of low-abundance taxa. These findings can be used for the standardization of gut microbiota DNA extraction methodologies and the development of domestic protocols.

qPCR, DNA extraction, human gut microbiome, extraction methods, mechanical lysis, laboratory standards



JMB-FOOTER RAS-JOURNALS