| Title |
Evaluating Protocols for Porcine Faecal Microbiome Recollection, Storage and DNA Extraction: from the Farm to the Lab
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Microbiology, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00284-017-1429-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anixa Muiños-Bühl, Oscar González-Recio, María Muñoz, Cristina Óvilo, Juan García-Casco, Ana I. Fernández |
| Abstract |
There is a growing interest in understanding the role of the gut microbiome on productive and meat quality-related traits in livestock species in order to develop new useful tools for improving pig production systems and industry. Faecal samples are analysed as a proxy of gut microbiota and here the selection of suitable protocols for faecal sampling and DNA isolation is a critical first step in order to obtain reliable results, even more to compare results obtained from different studies. The aim of the current study was to establish in a cost-effective way, using automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis technique, a protocol for porcine faecal sampling and storage at farm and slaughterhouse and to determine the most efficient microbiota DNA isolation kit among those most widely used. Operational Taxonomic Unit profiles were compared from Iberian pig faecal samples collected from rectum or ground, stored with liquid N2, room temperature or RNAlater, and processed with QIAamp DNA Stool (Qiagen), PowerFecal DNA Isolation (Mobio) or SpeedTools Tissue DNA extraction (Biotools) commercial kits. The results, focused on prokaryote sampling, based on DNA yield and quality, OTU number and Sørensen similarity Indexes, indicate that the recommended protocol for porcine faecal microbiome sampling at farm should include: the collection from porcine rectum to avoid contamination; the storage in liquid N2 or even at room temperature, but not in RNAlater; and the isolation of microbiota DNA using PowerFecal DNA Isolation kit. These conditions provide more reliable DNA samples for further microbiome analysis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 83% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Scientists | 3 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 53 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 7 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 20 | 38% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 9% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 8% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 September 2018.
All research outputs
#7,229,534
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Current Microbiology
#454
of 2,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,093
of 443,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Microbiology
#13
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,424 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 443,107 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.