[细菌核酸扩增试验DNA提取方法的比较验证]。

Yuya Hirata, Kazuyuki Sugahara, Hiroki Hanaiwa, Yumiko Funashima, Kenichi Sato, Zenzo Nagasawa, Tsukuru Umemura
{"title":"[细菌核酸扩增试验DNA提取方法的比较验证]。","authors":"Yuya Hirata,&nbsp;Kazuyuki Sugahara,&nbsp;Hiroki Hanaiwa,&nbsp;Yumiko Funashima,&nbsp;Kenichi Sato,&nbsp;Zenzo Nagasawa,&nbsp;Tsukuru Umemura","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Genetic testing is widely used as a rapid diagnostic method to identify microorganisms and detect antibiotic resistance genes. The nucleic acid to be analyzed is located inside the cell wall, the cell membrane or nuclear envelope. Therefore, it is essential to disassemble them in nucleic acid extraction operation. It is also necessary to remove or inactivate interfering substances by exposing cytoplasmic components accompanying cell disruption. Nucleic acid extraction is an indispensable task, but depending on the selected method, it may have a significant effect on the genetic test results. However, the DNA extraction method that is actually selected tends to emphasize work efficiency, and the appropriate evaluation of the extraction operation is neglected. In this study, we focused on the purity of the extracted DNA, and examined six existing extraction methods and original extraction methods using Gram-negative bacilli as a simple model. As a result, there was a large difference in DNA purity depending on the extraction method. When used in a qualitative gene amplification test, there was a difference in the shading of the bands. However, the detection of resistance genes all gave similar results. Furthermore, as a result of using the original extraction method, the extraction method using sodium decylbenzenesulfonate (SDBS) was the most excellent extraction method from the viewpoint of recovered DNA and operability.</p>","PeriodicalId":74740,"journal":{"name":"Rinsho Biseibutsu Jinsoku Shindan Kenkyukai shi = JARMAM : Journal of the Association for Rapid Method and Automation in Microbiology","volume":"29 2","pages":"65-74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Comparative Verification of DNA Extraction Methods for Bacterial Nucleic Acid Amplification Test].\",\"authors\":\"Yuya Hirata,&nbsp;Kazuyuki Sugahara,&nbsp;Hiroki Hanaiwa,&nbsp;Yumiko Funashima,&nbsp;Kenichi Sato,&nbsp;Zenzo Nagasawa,&nbsp;Tsukuru Umemura\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Genetic testing is widely used as a rapid diagnostic method to identify microorganisms and detect antibiotic resistance genes. The nucleic acid to be analyzed is located inside the cell wall, the cell membrane or nuclear envelope. Therefore, it is essential to disassemble them in nucleic acid extraction operation. It is also necessary to remove or inactivate interfering substances by exposing cytoplasmic components accompanying cell disruption. Nucleic acid extraction is an indispensable task, but depending on the selected method, it may have a significant effect on the genetic test results. However, the DNA extraction method that is actually selected tends to emphasize work efficiency, and the appropriate evaluation of the extraction operation is neglected. In this study, we focused on the purity of the extracted DNA, and examined six existing extraction methods and original extraction methods using Gram-negative bacilli as a simple model. As a result, there was a large difference in DNA purity depending on the extraction method. When used in a qualitative gene amplification test, there was a difference in the shading of the bands. However, the detection of resistance genes all gave similar results. Furthermore, as a result of using the original extraction method, the extraction method using sodium decylbenzenesulfonate (SDBS) was the most excellent extraction method from the viewpoint of recovered DNA and operability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74740,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rinsho Biseibutsu Jinsoku Shindan Kenkyukai shi = JARMAM : Journal of the Association for Rapid Method and Automation in Microbiology\",\"volume\":\"29 2\",\"pages\":\"65-74\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rinsho Biseibutsu Jinsoku Shindan Kenkyukai shi = JARMAM : Journal of the Association for Rapid Method and Automation in Microbiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rinsho Biseibutsu Jinsoku Shindan Kenkyukai shi = JARMAM : Journal of the Association for Rapid Method and Automation in Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

基因检测作为一种快速诊断微生物和检测抗生素耐药基因的方法被广泛应用。待分析的核酸位于细胞壁、细胞膜或核膜内。因此,在核酸提取操作中对其进行拆卸是必不可少的。也有必要通过暴露伴随细胞破坏的细胞质成分来去除或灭活干扰物质。核酸提取是一项必不可少的工作,但根据所选择的方法,核酸提取可能对基因检测结果产生重大影响。然而,实际选择的DNA提取方法往往强调工作效率,忽略了对提取操作的适当评价。本研究以革兰氏阴性杆菌为简单模型,重点考察了提取DNA的纯度,考察了现有的6种提取方法和原始的提取方法。因此,不同提取方法的DNA纯度差异很大。当用于定性基因扩增试验时,条带的阴影有所不同。然而,抗性基因的检测都给出了相似的结果。在原有提取方法的基础上,从提取DNA的回收率和可操作性来看,十二烷基苯磺酸钠(SDBS)提取方法是最优的提取方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[Comparative Verification of DNA Extraction Methods for Bacterial Nucleic Acid Amplification Test].

Genetic testing is widely used as a rapid diagnostic method to identify microorganisms and detect antibiotic resistance genes. The nucleic acid to be analyzed is located inside the cell wall, the cell membrane or nuclear envelope. Therefore, it is essential to disassemble them in nucleic acid extraction operation. It is also necessary to remove or inactivate interfering substances by exposing cytoplasmic components accompanying cell disruption. Nucleic acid extraction is an indispensable task, but depending on the selected method, it may have a significant effect on the genetic test results. However, the DNA extraction method that is actually selected tends to emphasize work efficiency, and the appropriate evaluation of the extraction operation is neglected. In this study, we focused on the purity of the extracted DNA, and examined six existing extraction methods and original extraction methods using Gram-negative bacilli as a simple model. As a result, there was a large difference in DNA purity depending on the extraction method. When used in a qualitative gene amplification test, there was a difference in the shading of the bands. However, the detection of resistance genes all gave similar results. Furthermore, as a result of using the original extraction method, the extraction method using sodium decylbenzenesulfonate (SDBS) was the most excellent extraction method from the viewpoint of recovered DNA and operability.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Japanese Case of COVID-19 Caused by Omicron Strain with Y453F Substitution. [Evaluation of Methicillin Resistance Determination Time for MRSA Using Fully Automated Rapid Identification Susceptibility testing system RAISAS S4]. [Evaluation of the Clinical Validity of the Clostridioides difficile Nucleic Acid Detection Kit "Smart Gene® CD ToxinB"]. [Relationship between Serotypes and Biotypes of Yersinia enterocolitica and the Names of Identified Bacteria in the Microbial Identification and Susceptibility Testing Devices]. Comparison of Microorganism Detection, Time to Positivity, and Time-Dependent Shift in Viable Bacterial Count from VersaTREK and BacT/ALERT 3D Blood Culture Systems.
×
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