dnatrack is a work in progress — updates ship daily. Report a bug or request a feature →

Laboratory contamination over time during low-biomass sample analysis

Molecular Ecology Ressources, 2019

Study Design

Addressed Question

How does laboratory contamination (e.g., from reagents, equipment, or personnel) vary over time and across different laboratory environments?; What is the impact of laboratory contamination on metagenomic studies, particularly in low-biomass or ancient DNA samples?; How do different DNA extraction methods (e.g., commercial kits vs. homemade silica-based protocols) influence contamination profiles?

Activity Context

None

Category

Background DNAContamination

Specifications

BG in Professional EnvironmentExtractionPersistence with DecontaminationPersistence with Time

Variables of Interest

Time periods (pre/post-2015)contamination sourceslaboratory procedureslab environmentstaff training

Stringency of Control

Reality

Number of Individuals

N/A

Replicates per Individual and Condition

n.s. (Focuses on negative control samples (NTCs), not individuals. However, OCR was performed in triplicates)

Nucleic Acid

DNA

Bodily Origin

Microbial DNA + human-associated taxa

Depositor & Contact

Depositor Characteristics

N/A

Criteria for Shedder Status

N/A

Previous Activities

N/A

Contact Scenario

N/A

Primary Substrate

Primary Substrate Type

Extraction Blank Controls and No-Template Controls

Primary Substrate Material

N/A

Deposit

none

Delay

N/A

Secondary Substrate

Secondary Substrate Type

N/A

Secondary Substrate Material

N/A

Secondary Substrate Contact

N/A

Further Transfer

N/A

Sampling

Background DNA on Sampled Surface

Sampled

Sampling Time

N/A

Persistence

n.s.

Sampling Method

Extraction Blank Controls (EBCs): Empty tubes exposed to air for 30 seconds during sample decontamination in the same room as biological samples (e.g., ancient dental calculus). These tubes were processed identically to biological samples during DNA extraction and library preparation. No-Template Controls (NTCs): Generated during PCR amplification by omitting template DNA.

Sampling Area

N/A

Laboratory Analysis

Extraction

Homemade silica-based method; Commercial kit (PowerBiofilm DNA Isolation Kit, MOBIO)

DNA Quantification

QuBit and TapeStation of PCR products

Input for Profiling

2 µl

Profiling

16S rRNA metabarcoding targeting the V4 region of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene. Primers: Fusion primers (forward primer 515F and barcoded reverse primer 806R) as described by Caporaso et al. (2012). Amplification: 37 cycles of PCR with Platinum Taq DNA Polymerase High Fidelity (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Sequencing: Illumina MiSeq 2×150-bp (300 cycle) kit.

Reference Samples

N/A

Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis

the study focuses on microbial contaminant identification (via 16S rRNA metabarcoding and shotgun sequencing) rather than human DNA profile interpretation

RNA Data Interpretation

N/A

Results

DNA Quantity

N/A

Profile Quality

N/A

Parameter Used for Comparison

Contaminant diversity metrics: Alpha diversity (observed species, rarefied 16S rRNA data). Beta diversity (unweighted UniFrac values via PCoA). Control types: Extraction blank controls (EBCs) vs. no-template controls (NTCs). Extraction methods: Commercial DNA extraction kit vs. homemade silica-based method. Temporal and environmental factors: Laboratory facility (ultraclean vs. standard lab). Researcher, month, season, and year of extraction. Taxonomic profiles: Dominant phyla (e.g., Proteobacteria, Firmicutes). Human-associated taxa (e.g., Streptococcus, Corynebacterium).

Summary of Results

Contaminant diversity varied significantly by laboratory environment (Proteobacteria dominated ultraclean labs; Firmicutes in standard labs), researcher, month, and season. Commercial DNA extraction kits introduced higher microbial diversity (e.g., human-associated taxa) compared to a homemade silica-based method. Long-term monitoring (5 years) revealed 861 contaminant taxa, with 32 taxa linked to seasonal changes (e.g., dry vs. wet months).

Raised Questions

N/A

Cautionary Remarks

might be more relevant for ancient DNA protocols, not necessarily for forensics