S M Kukuczka1, L E Grosso. 1. Department of Pathology, St Louis University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO 63104, USA. grossol@slucare1.sluh.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The increasing clinical use of diagnostic DNA mutation analysis requires efficient isolation of DNA from peripheral blood. METHODS AND RESULTS: The use of a vacuum manifold to isolate DNA was evaluated and compared with a similar centrifugation-based DNA isolation technique. In PCR-based assays of five-point mutations, identical results were obtained with DNA isolated from peripheral blood using either centrifugation or a vacuum system. Minor modifications to PCR procedures were encountered. CONCLUSIONS: In the clinical setting, this vacuum-driven method of DNA isolation provides an efficient, useful alternative to conventional centrifugation-based DNA isolation from peripheral-blood specimens. Providing sufficient, stable DNA for multiple assays, it is easily implemented without highly specialized, expensive equipment and decreases the time spent isolating DNA from multiple samples. In addition, the potential for specimen contamination is reduced because there are fewer transfer steps.
BACKGROUND: The increasing clinical use of diagnostic DNA mutation analysis requires efficient isolation of DNA from peripheral blood. METHODS AND RESULTS: The use of a vacuum manifold to isolate DNA was evaluated and compared with a similar centrifugation-based DNA isolation technique. In PCR-based assays of five-point mutations, identical results were obtained with DNA isolated from peripheral blood using either centrifugation or a vacuum system. Minor modifications to PCR procedures were encountered. CONCLUSIONS: In the clinical setting, this vacuum-driven method of DNA isolation provides an efficient, useful alternative to conventional centrifugation-based DNA isolation from peripheral-blood specimens. Providing sufficient, stable DNA for multiple assays, it is easily implemented without highly specialized, expensive equipment and decreases the time spent isolating DNA from multiple samples. In addition, the potential for specimen contamination is reduced because there are fewer transfer steps.
Authors: J N Feder; A Gnirke; W Thomas; Z Tsuchihashi; D A Ruddy; A Basava; F Dormishian; R Domingo; M C Ellis; A Fullan; L M Hinton; N L Jones; B E Kimmel; G S Kronmal; P Lauer; V K Lee; D B Loeb; F A Mapa; E McClelland; N C Meyer; G A Mintier; N Moeller; T Moore; E Morikang; C E Prass; L Quintana; S M Starnes; R C Schatzman; K J Brunke; D T Drayna; N J Risch; B R Bacon; R K Wolff Journal: Nat Genet Date: 1996-08 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: P Frosst; H J Blom; R Milos; P Goyette; C A Sheppard; R G Matthews; G J Boers; M den Heijer; L A Kluijtmans; L P van den Heuvel Journal: Nat Genet Date: 1995-05 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: R M Bertina; B P Koeleman; T Koster; F R Rosendaal; R J Dirven; H de Ronde; P A van der Velden; P H Reitsma Journal: Nature Date: 1994-05-05 Impact factor: 49.962