Evaluation of DNA extraction methods suitable for PCR-based detection and genotyping of Clostridium botulinum.

Bruna Auricchio, Fabrizio Anniballi, Alfonsina Fiore, Jeffrey E Skiby, Dario De Medici
{"title":"Evaluation of DNA extraction methods suitable for PCR-based detection and genotyping of Clostridium botulinum.","authors":"Bruna Auricchio,&nbsp;Fabrizio Anniballi,&nbsp;Alfonsina Fiore,&nbsp;Jeffrey E Skiby,&nbsp;Dario De Medici","doi":"10.1089/bsp.2012.0082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Sufficient quality and quantity of extracted DNA is critical to detecting and performing genotyping of Clostridium botulinum by means of PCR-based methods. An ideal extraction method has to optimize DNA yield, minimize DNA degradation, allow multiple samples to be extracted, and be efficient in terms of cost, time, labor, and supplies. Eleven botulinum toxin-producing clostridia strains and 25 samples (10 food, 13 clinical, and 2 environmental samples) naturally contaminated with botulinum toxin-producing clostridia were used to compare 4 DNA extraction procedures: Chelex(®) 100 matrix, Phenol-Cloroform-Isoamyl alcohol, NucliSENS(®) magnetic extraction kit, and DNeasy(®) Blood & Tissue kit. Integrity, purity, and amount of amplifiable DNA were evaluated. The results show that the DNeasy(®) Blood & Tissue kit is the best extraction method evaluated because it provided the most pure, intact, and amplifiable DNA. However, Chelex(®) 100 matrix seems to be suitable for PCR-based methods intended for laboratory diagnosis of suspected outbreaks of botulism, because it is faster and cheaper compared to DNeasy(®) Blood & Tissue kit, and for samples in which the mean of Ct values obtained are statistically different (P>0.05) with respect to the best method, no lack of PCR amplification was shown. In addition, molecular methods for laboratory diagnosis currently are based on a microbial enrichment step prior to PCR, and so the differences in amplification seem to not influence the analytical results. </p>","PeriodicalId":87059,"journal":{"name":"Biosecurity and bioterrorism : biodefense strategy, practice, and science","volume":"11 Suppl 1 ","pages":"S200-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/bsp.2012.0082","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biosecurity and bioterrorism : biodefense strategy, practice, and science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/bsp.2012.0082","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Sufficient quality and quantity of extracted DNA is critical to detecting and performing genotyping of Clostridium botulinum by means of PCR-based methods. An ideal extraction method has to optimize DNA yield, minimize DNA degradation, allow multiple samples to be extracted, and be efficient in terms of cost, time, labor, and supplies. Eleven botulinum toxin-producing clostridia strains and 25 samples (10 food, 13 clinical, and 2 environmental samples) naturally contaminated with botulinum toxin-producing clostridia were used to compare 4 DNA extraction procedures: Chelex(®) 100 matrix, Phenol-Cloroform-Isoamyl alcohol, NucliSENS(®) magnetic extraction kit, and DNeasy(®) Blood & Tissue kit. Integrity, purity, and amount of amplifiable DNA were evaluated. The results show that the DNeasy(®) Blood & Tissue kit is the best extraction method evaluated because it provided the most pure, intact, and amplifiable DNA. However, Chelex(®) 100 matrix seems to be suitable for PCR-based methods intended for laboratory diagnosis of suspected outbreaks of botulism, because it is faster and cheaper compared to DNeasy(®) Blood & Tissue kit, and for samples in which the mean of Ct values obtained are statistically different (P>0.05) with respect to the best method, no lack of PCR amplification was shown. In addition, molecular methods for laboratory diagnosis currently are based on a microbial enrichment step prior to PCR, and so the differences in amplification seem to not influence the analytical results.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
适用于肉毒梭菌pcr检测及基因分型的DNA提取方法评价。
以pcr为基础的方法检测肉毒梭菌并进行基因分型,提取足够质量和数量的DNA至关重要。理想的提取方法必须优化DNA产率,最小化DNA降解,允许提取多个样品,并且在成本,时间,劳动力和供应方面效率高。采用11株产肉毒杆菌梭菌和25份天然被产肉毒杆菌污染的样品(10份食品、13份临床和2份环境样品),比较4种DNA提取方法:Chelex(®)100基质、苯酚-氯仿-异戊醇、NucliSENS(®)磁力提取试剂盒和DNeasy(®)Blood & Tissue试剂盒。评估可扩增DNA的完整性、纯度和数量。结果表明,DNeasy(®)血液和组织试剂盒是评估的最佳提取方法,因为它提供了最纯净、完整和可扩增的DNA。然而,Chelex(®)100基质似乎适用于基于PCR的方法,用于疑似肉毒中毒的实验室诊断,因为与DNeasy(®)Blood & Tissue试剂盒相比,Chelex(®)100基质更快、更便宜,并且对于获得的Ct值平均值与最佳方法有统计学差异(P>0.05)的样品,并不缺乏PCR扩增。此外,目前用于实验室诊断的分子方法是基于PCR之前的微生物富集步骤,因此扩增的差异似乎不会影响分析结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Legal Aspects of Biosecurity Response at the State and Local Level Biosecurity Programs and Assets Future Directions for Biosecurity Seeds of Destruction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1