It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Biomolecules for OMIC analysis of microbial communities are commonly extracted by bead-beating or ultra-sonication, but both showed varying yields. In addition to that, different disruption pressures are necessary to lyse bacteria and fungi. However, the disruption efficiency and yields comparing bead-beating and ultra-sonication of different biological material have not yet been demonstrated. Here, we show that ultra-sonication in a bath transfers three times more energy than bead-beating over 10 min. TEM imaging revealed intact gram-positive bacterial and fungal cells whereas the gram-negative bacterial cells were destroyed beyond recognition after 10 min of ultra-sonication. DNA extraction using 10 min of bead-beating revealed higher yields for fungi but the extraction efficiency was at least three-fold lower considering its larger genome. By our critical viewpoint, we encourage the review of the commonly used extraction techniques as we provide evidence for a potential underrepresentation of resistant microbes, particularly fungi, in ecological studies.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details



1 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, Richland, USA (GRID:grid.451303.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2218 3491); Institute of Microbiology of the CAS, Laboratory of Environmental Microbiology, Praha, Czech Republic (GRID:grid.418800.5) (ISNI:0000 0004 0555 4846)
2 Helmholtz-Center for Environmental Research, UFZ, Leipzig, Germany (GRID:grid.7492.8) (ISNI:0000 0004 0492 3830)
3 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, Richland, USA (GRID:grid.451303.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2218 3491)
4 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, Richland, USA (GRID:grid.451303.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2218 3491); Evolution and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, Department of Ecology, Iowa, USA (GRID:grid.34421.30) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7312)