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
Category
Specifications
Variables of Interest
Stringency of Control
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
Bodily Origin
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
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