2001
DOI: 10.1128/aem.67.9.4397-4397.2001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

DNA Extraction from Soils: Old Bias for New Microbial Diversity Analysis Methods

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
111
0
1

Year Published

2005
2005
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 94 publications
(115 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
3
111
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The results described herein corroborate earlier reports that DNA isolation methods introduce bias into studies of microbial ecology (Martin‐Laurent et al. 2001; Webster et al.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The results described herein corroborate earlier reports that DNA isolation methods introduce bias into studies of microbial ecology (Martin‐Laurent et al. 2001; Webster et al.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…The apparent discrepancy in the SSU quantification (significantly greater than all other methods) and species richness results (average bacterial richness, low fungal richness) seen for method MS may be a result of residual contaminants in the DNA preparations. Martin‐Laurent et al determined that, depending on primer set (16S Universal or 16S‐23S intergenic Universal), PCR efficiency was affected by either the extraction method or the soil composition (Martin‐Laurent et al. 2001).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The fluid obtained from both potato cultivars from 13 CO 2 ‐labeled plants as well as from control plants were further used for DNA isolation according to Martin‐Laurent et al . (2001).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many procedures have been recently developed that rely on culture‐independent and molecular approaches (Veum, Lorenz, & Kremer, 2019). These genomic and lipid techniques include (i) molecular DNA methods (Martin‐Laurent et al., 2001), (ii) fatty acid methyl ester analysis (FAME) (Cavigelli, Robertson, & Klug, 1995), (iii) phospholipid‐linked FAME analysis (Pankhurst, Yu, Hawke, & Harch, 2001), and (iv) phospholipid fatty acid analysis (PLFA) (Buyer & Sasser, 2012; Helgason, Walley, & Germida, 2010; Hill et al., 2000).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%