PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 26, 2026PLoS ONE0 citationsOpen Access

Cost-effective DNA extraction method optimized for high yield and long fragments from coastal sediments

View Full Paper
LMLeopold MatthysEMEléonord Mayissah MounguesAGAnaëlle Genève

Key Points

  • The study aims to compare a laboratory-made DNA extraction method with commercial kits to evaluate efficiency and yield from coastal sediments.
  • Comparison of a laboratory-made extraction method with Qiagen DNEasy™ PowerSoil™ Pro and PowerMax™ Soil kits.
  • Assessment of DNA yield and fragment length from sandy, low-organic-matter sediments.
  • Analysis of eukaryotic richness and prokaryotic diversity across different extraction methods.
  • Evaluation of cost-effectiveness and hands-on time required for each method.
  • The laboratory-made method produced up to 13 times more DNA yield than commercial kits.
  • Longer DNA fragments were obtained using the laboratory-made method, with lengths up to 4-fold greater.
  • The method successfully amplified the 18S rRNA gene for downstream sequencing in several samples.
  • Eukaryotic richness varied with sample amount, while prokaryotic diversity metrics remained similar across methods.
  • The laboratory-made method was significantly cheaper per sample despite a higher initial cost.

Abstract

Efficient DNA extraction from coastal sediments is a critical step for studying microbial communities, especially when targeting high-molecular-weight DNA for long-read sequencing. Here, we compare a cost-effective laboratory-made (LM) extraction method with two widely used commercial kits: Qiagen DNEasy™ PowerSoil™ Pro (PSP) and PowerMax™ Soil (PM). In sandy, low-organic-matter sediments, the LM method consistently produced higher DNA yields – up to 13 times more than the commercial kits – and longer DNA fragments (up to 4-fold), likely due to its enzymatic lysis approach. It was also the only method that successfully amplified the 18S rRNA gene in sufficient quantity to enable downstream sequencing in certain samples. While prokaryotic diversity metrics were largely similar across methods, we observed differences in eukaryotic richness that were likely influenced by the amount of sediment processed. This demonstrates the higher importance of sample amount when assessing microeukaryotic diversity. Despite these differences, the LM method gave reproducible results and recovered taxa that were less frequently detected by commercial kits. In terms of cost, the LM method is significantly cheaper per sample than commercial alternatives, despite a higher starting cost. Although it requires more hands-on time, this trade-off may be worthwhile for large-scale studies and developing countries. Overall, the LM method is a robust and economical option, particularly suited for sandy or low-biomass sediments, and for studies requiring high-quality DNA. These results underline the importance of choosing and validating extraction protocols based on both the sediment type and the study’s goals.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Matthys et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/699fe36b95ddcd3a253e73aahttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343743
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper