食品科学 ›› 2022, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (4): 113-118.doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-20201119-201

• 生物工程 • 上一篇    下一篇

DNA提取前处理方法对萨拉米香肠中细菌种群结构的影响

姬庆龙,赵贵明,王娉,赵勇胜,赵晓美,杨海荣,陈颖   

  1. (中国检验检疫科学研究院,北京 100176)
  • 出版日期:2022-02-25 发布日期:2022-03-08
  • 基金资助:
    “十三五”国家重点研发计划重点专项(2018YFD0401200); 中国检验检疫科学研究院基本科研业务费专项(2018JK028)

Effect of Pretreatment Methods for DNA Extraction on the Bacterial Community Structure in Salami

JI Qinglong, ZHAO Guiming, WANG Ping, ZHAO Yongsheng, ZHAO Xiaomei, YANG Hairong, CHEN Ying   

  1. (Chinese Academy of Inspection and Quarantine, Beijing 100176, China)
  • Online:2022-02-25 Published:2022-03-08

摘要: 通过比较不同DNA提取前处理方法在高通量测序中对萨拉米香肠细菌种群结构的影响,为建立规范的高通量测序的操作流程优选出更适宜的前处理方法。采用直接提取法(M0)、拍击均质法(M1)和振荡珠磨法(M2)3 种常用前处理方法提取萨拉米香肠中细菌DNA,利用MiSeq高通量测序技术分析萨拉米香肠中细菌16S rRNA V3-V4区基因序列,以可操作分类单元(operational taxonomic unit,OTU)为基础分析细菌种群结构。结果表明,M0、M1和M2的OTU数分别为319、206和253;3 种方法共有的OTU数为129,占样品总OTU数的31.85%;Chao1指数分别为177.93±31.02、120.76±28.60、166.96±15.63;Shannon指数分别为2.79±0.22、2.95±0.31、3.25±0.30。在门和科分类水平,不同前处理方法获得的样品细菌种群结构相似,只有丰度上存在差异;但在属分类水平下,不同前处理方法可影响后续种群结构分析的结果。M0可增大优势菌的丰度及多样性,可用于检测样品在成熟过程中存在过的细菌。而M1和M2除去了游离DNA,只留下具有完整细胞结构的细菌菌体,更能反映出样品在取样时的细菌种群结构。当样品结构相对均一时,M1与M2的菌群结构和丰度趋于一致。本研究说明,不同的前处理方法可影响后续种群结构分析的结果。应该尽早建立统一的高通量测序操作与分析流程,确保数据的可靠性以及不同研究之间结果的可比性。

关键词: 萨拉米香肠;前处理方法;细菌种群结构;发酵肉制品

Abstract: This study aimed to compare the effect of different pretreatment methods for DNA extraction on the bacterial community structure in salami for the purpose of selecting appropriate pretreatment methods for a standardized high-throughput sequencing process. We extracted bacterial DNA from salami by three common pretreatment methods: direct extraction (M0), tapping homogenization (M1), and bead beating (M2). We performed MiSeq high-throughput sequencing of the V3-V4 hypervariable region of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene and analyzed the bacterial community structure based on operational taxonomic units (OTUs). The results showed that a total of 319, 206, and 253 OTUs were observed with M0, M1, and M2, respectively; the number of OTUs shared by the three methods was 129, accounting for 31.85% of the total OTUs. For the three methods, the Chao1 index was 177.93 ± 31.02, 120.76 ± 28.60, and 166.96 ± 15.63, respectively, and the Shannon index was 2.79 ± 0.22, 2.95 ± 0.31, and 3.25 ± 0.30, respectively. At the phylum and family level, the bacterial community structure of the samples obtained by different pretreatment methods was similar despite differential abundance; however, different pretreatment methods affected the results of subsequent community structure analysis at the genus level. M0 increased the abundance and diversity of dominant bacteria, and could be applied to detect bacteria in maturing salami samples. M1 and M2 removed free DNA, leaving only bacterial cells with a complete structure, which could better reflect the bacterial community structure in samples. The bacterial community structure and abundance observed with M1 and M2 for homogeneous samples tended to be consistent. In conclusion, this study shows that different pretreatment methods can affect the results of bacterial community structure analysis. A standardized procedure for high-throughput sequencing should be established as soon as possible to ensure data reliability and the comparability of results across studies.

Key words: salami; pretreatment methods; bacterial community structure; fermented meat products

中图分类号: