Literature DB >> 12752806

Comparison of rapid methods for the extraction of bacterial DNA from colonic and caecal lumen contents of the pig.

K L Anderson1, S Lebepe-Mazur.   

Abstract

AIMS: The increasing uses of DNA methodologies to study the micro flora of the pig gastrointestinal tract requires an efficient recovery of bacterial DNA from the intestinal sample. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine which DNA extraction methods are most effective for luminal samples from pigs. Several routinely used nucleic acid extraction procedures were compared based upon quantity and purity of extracted DNA. METHODS AND
RESULTS: DNA was extracted from pig colonic and caecal lumen samples using 19 methods for bacterial DNA extraction. The quantity of total DNA recovered by each extraction method was determined and compared. Two methods using extraction with polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (PVPP) or phenol and two methods involving bead mill homogenization were found to provide the greatest quantity of extracted DNA for both colonic and caecal lumen. Extracted DNA from these four methods was further analysed for purity based upon the presence of PCR inhibitors, which was ascertained by determining the efficiency of amplification of a segment of the 16S rDNA. PCR amplification could be readily achieved with DNA extracted by each of these four methods, but efficiency of amplification tended to be higher with DNA from two of the methods (one extracted with PVPP and one with bead mill homogenization).
CONCLUSIONS: Four extraction methods proved to be significantly superior in quantity of DNA extracted from luminal samples. Of these four, no strong inhibitors of PCR amplification were detected in any of the extracted DNA. However, the efficiency of amplification tended to be lower in DNA samples from two of the methods, suggesting the presence of low levels of PCR inhibitors. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: Results of this study provide a basis for choosing which DNA extraction procedures are most effective for use with samples of pig lumen.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12752806     DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2003.01917.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Microbiol        ISSN: 1364-5072            Impact factor:   3.772


  4 in total

1.  PCR Conditions for 16S Primers for Analysis of Microbes in the Colon of Rats.

Authors:  I A Guillen; H Camacho; A D Tuero; D Bacardí; D O Palenzuela; A Aguilera; J A Silva; R Estrada; O Gell; J Suárez; J Ancizar; E Brown; A B Colarte; J Castro; L I Novoa
Journal:  J Biomol Tech       Date:  2016-06-24

2.  Methylotrophs and Hydrocarbon-Degrading Bacteria Are Key Players in the Microbial Community of an Abandoned Century-Old Oil Exploration Well.

Authors:  Diego Rojas-Gätjens; Paola Fuentes-Schweizer; Keilor Rojas-Jiménez; Danilo Pérez-Pantoja; Roberto Avendaño; Randall Alpízar; Carolina Coronado-Ruíz; Max Chavarría
Journal:  Microb Ecol       Date:  2021-04-17       Impact factor: 4.552

3.  F5Evaluation of commercially available DNA extraction kits for the analysis of the broiler chicken cecal microbiota.

Authors:  Helga Pankoke; Irena Maus; Gunnar Loh; Andrea Hüser; Jana Seifert; Alexandra Tilker; Sarah Hark; Alexander Sczyrba; Stefan Pelzer; Jessica Kleinbölting
Journal:  FEMS Microbiol Lett       Date:  2019-03-27       Impact factor: 2.742

4.  Evaluation of methods for the extraction and purification of DNA from the human microbiome.

Authors:  Sanqing Yuan; Dora B Cohen; Jacques Ravel; Zaid Abdo; Larry J Forney
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-03-23       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.