PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Lisa Karstens
AU  - Nazema Y. Siddiqui
AU  - Tamara Zaza
AU  - Alecsander Barstad
AU  - Cindy L. Amundsen
AU  - Tatyana A. Sysoeva
TI  - Benchmarking DNA isolation kits used in analyses of the urinary microbiome
AID  - 10.1101/2020.11.10.375279
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - bioRxiv
PG  - 2020.11.10.375279
4099  - http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/10/2020.11.10.375279.short
4100  - http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/10/2020.11.10.375279.full
AB  - The urinary microbiome has been increasingly characterized using next-generation sequencing. However, many of the technical methods have not yet been specifically optimized for urine. We sought to compare the performance of several DNA isolation kits used in urinary microbiome studies. A total of 11 voided urine samples and one buffer control were divided into 5 equal aliquots and processed in parallel using five commercial DNA isolation kits. DNA was quantified and the V4 segment of the 16S rRNA gene was sequenced. Data were processed to identify the microbial composition and to assess alpha and beta diversity of the samples. Tested DNA isolation kits result in significantly different DNA yields from urine samples but non-significant differences in the number of reads recovered, alpha, or beta diversity. DNA extracted with the Qiagen Biostic Bacteremia and DNeasy Blood & Tissue kits showed the fewest technical issues in downstream analyses, with the DNeasy Blood & Tissue kit also demonstrating the highest DNA yield. The Promega kit recovered fewer Gram positive bacteria compared to other kits. The Promega and DNeasy PowerSoil kits also appear to have some important biases towards over-representing certain Gram negative bacteria of biologic relevance within the urinary microbiome.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.