Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPratte, Zoe A.
dc.contributor.authorKellogg, Christina A.
dc.date.accessioned2022-09-23T20:06:47Z
dc.date.available2022-09-23T20:06:47Z
dc.date.issued2021-07
dc.identifier.citationPratte ZA and Kellogg CA (2021) Comparison of Preservation and Extraction Methods on Five Taxonomically Disparate Coral Microbiomes. Front. Mar. Sci. 8:684161. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.68416en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/handle/1/17219
dc.description.abstractAll animals are host to a multitude of microorganisms that are essential to the animal’s health. Host-associated microbes have been shown to defend against potential pathogens, provide essential nutrients, interact with the host’s immune system, and even regulate mood. However, it can be difficult to preserve and obtain nucleic acids from some host-associated microbiomes, making studying their microbial communities challenging. Corals are an example of this, in part due to their potentially remote, underwater locations, their thick surface mucopolysaccharide layer, and various inherent molecular inhibitors. This study examined three different preservatives (RNAlater, DNA/RNA Shield, and liquid nitrogen) and two extraction methods (the Qiagen PowerBiofilm kit and the Promega Maxwell RBC kit with modifications) to determine if there was an optimum combination for examining the coral microbiome. These methods were employed across taxonomically diverse coral species, including deep-sea/shallow, stony/soft, and zooxanthellate/azooxanthellate: Lophelia pertusa, Paragorgia johnsoni, Montastraea cavernosa, Porites astreoides, and Stephanocoenia intersepta. Although significant differences were found between preservative types and extraction methods, these differences were subtle, and varied in nature from coral species to coral species. Significant differences between coral species were far more profound than those detected between preservative or extraction method. We suggest that the preservative types presented here and extraction methods using a bead-beating step provide enough consistency to compare coral microbiomes across various studies, as long as subtle differences in microbial communities are attributed to dissimilar methodologies. Additionally, the inclusion of internal controls such as a mock community and extraction blanks can help provide context regarding data quality, improving downstream analyses.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherFrontiers Media SAen_US
dc.rightscc-byen_US
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_US
dc.subjectpreservationen_US
dc.subjectextractionen_US
dc.subjectcoralen_US
dc.subjectmicrobiomeen_US
dc.subjectbacteriaen_US
dc.subjectRNAIateren_US
dc.subjectliquid nitrogenen_US
dc.subjectpowerbiofilmen_US
dc.titleComparison of Preservation and Extraction Methods on Five Taxonomically Disparate Coral Microbiomesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
mus.citation.extentfirstpage1en_US
mus.citation.extentlastpage13en_US
mus.citation.journaltitleFrontiers in Marine Scienceen_US
mus.citation.volume8en_US
mus.identifier.doi10.3389/fmars.2021.684161en_US
mus.relation.collegeCollege of Agricultureen_US
mus.relation.departmentMicrobiology & Cell Biology.en_US
mus.relation.universityMontana State University - Bozemanen_US
mus.data.thumbpage5en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

cc-by
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as cc-by

MSU uses DSpace software, copyright © 2002-2017  Duraspace. For library collections that are not accessible, we are committed to providing reasonable accommodations and timely access to users with disabilities. For assistance, please submit an accessibility request for library material.