[compost_tea] Re: The soil metagenome: Methods review
The additional notes you've provided are much
appreciated, Elaine.
Yes, let us make this a discussion.
For many of us, it is also necessary to have a basic
introduction to these molecular methods!!
Some applications are more practical than others.
More later,
Steve Diver
--- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, soilfoodweb@a... wrote:
> You have to understand what is being measured, exactly, in order to
know if
> the tests used in molecualr biology measures what you want measured.
>
> What is the question you want answered? Can these molecular methods
do what
> you want?
>
> Let me review what the methods in Steve's e-mail are about. All of
these
> involve methods to assess nucleic acids, sequences of nucleic acids,
and genetic
> relationships between organisms.
>
> rDNA sequencing
> DNA extraction and PCR analysis
> real-time PCR analysis
> PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction)
> gel electrophoresis
> gene expression
> phylogenetic mapping
>
> rDNA means ribosomal DNA. In eucaryotes, ribosomes are housed in the
> mitochondria. You have mitochondrial nucleic acids in eucaryotes,
which are more
> highly conserved than the genomic DNA, as I understand.
>
> Procaryotes do not have mitochondria, of course, so they don't have
this
> additional source of nucleic acid material. Our ability to
understand genetic
> relationships is therefore much more limited in bacteria and virus,
since this
> additional set of nucleic acids is not present in procaryotes.
>
> DNA extraction is of course, just extracting DNA from any material.
> Extracting DNA from mitochodria would be rDNA. Otherwise, as DNA is
translated and
> multiplied, it is RNA, since cells use different nucleic acids in
producing the
> messages inside cells than for making the material of the genome.
>
> Extracting DNA from soil was a major problem for many years, and
still messes
> certain people up, as they haven't paid attention to the fact that clay
> adsorbs nulceic acids quite well. ANY protein will be rapidly
adsorbed on clay
> surfaces. If the DNA you extract is sucked up by this material, the
researcher
> can, and it has happened, come to the comclusion that soil has low
diversity.
> Not the case - the methods were faulty.
>
> Once you extract DNA, you have to multiply it. In order to work
with DNA,
> you need lots of it. But you have to get the sequences the same as
were in the
> original material. So, PCR is used to copy the sequences of DNA so
where you
> have one strand of DNA, you now have millions.
>
> That's all that PCR is: a replication process. Polymerase is an
enzyme that
> copies nucleic acid sequences. But, if you extract DNA from all
cells in the
> soil, if you have one individual of one species, you will have only
one DNA
> sequence of that kind. And if you replicate each strand of the 600
million DNA
> strands (the typical number of bacteria in a healthy soil, each
bacterium
> presumably having one genome) by a million times, you still only
have one strand
> of that DNA per 600 million strands. Will that strand be detected
in the
> analysis of the sequences?
>
> Now, as we want to have our PCR product rapidly, we have moved to
real-time
> PCR, which has reduced the time for the whole multiplication process
to take
> place. But when we hurry things, guess what gets lost?
>
> So, real-time diversity? Or actual diversity? When we to gel
> electrophoresis of the products from PCR, are we likely to assess
the full diversity of the
> DNA strands? Not if we have hurried things along.
>
> Going fast allows us to get an idea of the dominant species, not the
full
> diversity. Can there be a problem here, when interpreting this
information? If
> you gloss over the details, yes, conclusions can be made that are
entirely
> inappropriate. Care must be exercised in conclusions that are made.
>
> Gene expression. Genetic material is not always expressed. For
example, you
> may have the genetic material which allows you to play the violin
like a
> virtuoso, but if you have never picked up a violin, that genetic
material will
> never be expressed. Yes, it's a bit more complicated than that, as
practice is
> involved, but I think you get what I mean. Genetic material is not
always
> used, not always expressed.
>
> So, for example, when people want to use fatty acid expression to
assess
> bacterial species diversity, they often incorrectly interpret the
data, because
> bacteria do not always express the fatty acids of interest. Think
of the errors
> that are likely to ocurr.
>
> But can assessing fatty acids gives us a good idea of diversity?
>
> Show me data where full diversity has been assessed, and compare
that to
> fatty acid information. Good correlation, or not? Sometimes....
sometimese not.
> So, when is the method going to be good, and when isn't it? I am
not aware
> of such analysis. If anyone is aware of such analysis, I'd love to
get that
> paper! But until then, use fatty acid analysis to make conclusions
about
> diversity with a solid grain of salt.
>
> OK, back to the nucleic acid world.
>
> Molecular biologists have started to use RNA as a method of assessing
> organism diversity. EXCEPT, RNA is only produced when a gene is
being expressed.
> So, mRNA (messaenger RNA), rRNA (ribosomal RNA), whatever, are only
produced
> when DNA is being copied and translated.
>
> So, can RNA ever be a method to assess diversity? No, most of the
genes in
> any genome are not being expressed at any time.
>
> Can you use RNA probes to tell you if a bacterium is present, or
not? What
> if the RNA probe you are using is for an enzyme that is not being
expressed by
> that bacterium at this moment? You are in trouble.
>
> So, for E. coli, for example, if E. coli is not active, it does not
express
> beta-galactosidase, does not make the RNA that is what the molecular
probe
> attaches to. Is this a problem? Yes, if you need to know if any E.
coli is
> present.
>
> But maybe we only need to know about ACTIVE E. coli, in which case
the RNA
> probe would be fine.
>
> Well, I could go on, but this is enough. Probably too much. I am
always
> happy to discuss this with folks, since there is more that I could
learn about
> these things.
>
> But make it a discussion. No attacks on the people trying to
understand or
> share knowledge. And, as always, if I have made any errors of
omission or made
> a mistake in my information, a gentle correction is the most
reasonable way
> to start a discussion about any point.
>
> Elaine R. Ingham
> Soil Foodweb Inc., Corvallis, Oregon
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor |
ADVERTISEMENT
![click here](http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/yahoo_companion/lrec_companion_043004.gif) | |
![](http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=:HM/A=2128215/rand=139936877) |
Yahoo! Groups Links
Received on Thu Aug 19 2004 - 17:44:25 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:27 EST