Impact of storage and extraction methods on peat soil microbiomes

储存和提取方法对泥炭土微生物群的影响

阅读:8
作者:Dylan Cronin #, Yueh-Fen Li #, Paul Evans, Gene W Tyson, Ben J Woodcroft, Virginia I Rich; IsoGenie 2016 and 2019 Field Teams

Abstract

Recovered microbial community structure is known to be influenced by sample storage conditions and nucleic acid extraction methods, and the impact varies by sample type. Peat soils store a large portion of soil carbon and their microbiomes mediate climate feedbacks. Here, we tested three storage conditions and five extraction protocols on peat soils from three physicochemically distinct habitats in Stordalen Mire, Sweden, revealing significant methodological impacts on microbial (here, meaning bacteria and archaea) community structure. Initial preservation method impacted alpha but not beta diversity, with in-field storage in LifeGuard buffer yielding roughly two-thirds the richness of in-field flash-freezing or transport from the field on ice (all samples were stored at -80 °C after return from the field). Nucleic acid extraction method impacted both alpha and beta diversity; one method (the PowerSoil Total RNA Isolation kit with DNA Elution Accessory kit) diverged from the others (PowerMax Soil DNA Isolation kit-High Humic Acid Protocol, and three variations of a modified PowerMax Soil DNA/RNA isolation kit), capturing more diverse microbial taxa, with divergent community structures. Although habitat and sample depth still consistently dominated community variation, method-based biases in microbiome recovery for these climatologically-relevant soils are significant, and underscore the importance of methodological consistency for accurate inter-study comparisons, long-term monitoring, and consistent ecological interpretations.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。