Abstract
Mouse models are widely used to evaluate the potential impact of the gut microbial composition on health and disease. Standardized protocols for sampling and storing murine feces, as well as for extracting DNA from these fecal pellets are needed to limit experimental variation between different studies. Both efficient lysis of the microbiota and the quality of the obtained fecal DNA are important for allowing the downstream next-generation sequencing to cover the phylogenetic diversity of both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria living in the mouse gut. Here we present a detailed protocol for fecal sample collection and DNA extraction that we validated in a study on the impact of inflammasomes on the murine gut microbiota. This protocol for DNA extraction from murine fecal pellets utilizes a combination of mechanical and chemical lysis, which aligns with the procedure that was recently recommended as a benchmark protocol for DNA extraction from human feces.
Keywords: Gut microbiota, Fecal DNA, Mouse feces, DNA extraction, 16S phylogenetic analysis, Next-generation sequencing
Background
Limiting technical variation within as well as between laboratories is imperative for reproducibility and hence for scientific progress from experimental research. Within the expanding gut microbiota research community, a plethora of methodologies are used to profile the phylogenetic composition of the intestinal ecosystem. Each step in this microbiota analysis process is subject to technical variation depending on the protocol or the materials used. For instance, comparing several protocols to extract DNA from murine feces showed striking differences in the obtained results even within the same laboratory (Ferrand et al., 2014). Therefore, it is clear that standardized protocols are needed to enable meta-analyses of multiple different studies. For analyzing the human fecal microbiota, a large international consortium of researchers recently compared the effects of numerous technical approaches in every single step of the gut microbiota analysis pipeline in several independent laboratories (Costea et al., 2017). This study identified differences in the DNA extraction method as the biggest influence on the downstream gut microbiota analysis results. Based on the obtained DNA quality as well as on the reproducibility between different laboratories, the so-called ‘Protocol Q’ was identified as the best one and was proposed as a benchmark for extracting DNA from human feces (Costea et al., 2017).Although such multi-centered comparative studies have not been performed for murine fecal DNA extraction protocols, we recently reported a gut microbiota profiling study in mice using a protocol similar to the Protocol Q recommended for human fecal DNA extraction (Mamantopoulos et al., 2017). Like the latter, our protocol uses a combination of mechanical bead-beating and chemical lysis with the QIAGEN QiaAmp® Stool Kit. Indeed, it has been reported that mere chemical lysis of feces results in an underrepresentation of DNA from Gram-positive bacteria that have a thicker cell wall (Salonen et al., 2010). In contrast, both Protocol Q and our protocol detailed below are expected to result in efficient lysis of both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria.
Materials and Reagents
Equipment
Procedure
Data analysis
Concentration and quality of the obtained fecal DNA can be measured by NanoDrop analysis, in which the absorbance ratios at 260 nm/230 nm and 260 nm/280 nm can be determined to evaluate the purity of the extracted DNA, which should be around 2 and 1.8, respectively. Downstream phylogenetic 16S rDNA microbiota analysis starts with a PCR on 25 ng of fecal DNA. Therefore, since this protocol generates at least 1 μg of DNA at a concentration of 5 ng/μl, the quantity of obtained DNA is not a limiting factor. Further procedures for phylogenetic 16S rDNA microbiota analysis are outlined in our previous study (Mamantopoulos et al., 2017).
Acknowledgments
A.W. is supported by the Odysseus grant G.0C49.13N from the Fund for Scientific Research-Flanders, and is a post-doctoral fellow with the Fund for Scientific Research-Flanders. The authors do not have any conflicts of interest.
References
If you have any questions/comments about this protocol, you are highly recommended to post here. We will invite the authors of this protocol as well as some of its users to address your questions/comments. To make it easier for them to help you, you are encouraged to post your data including images for the troubleshooting.