Literature DB >> 19789856

Influence of DNA extraction methods, PCR inhibitors and quantification methods on real-time PCR assay of biotechnology-derived traits.

Tigst Demeke1, G Ronald Jenkins.   

Abstract

Biotechnology-derived varieties of canola, cotton, corn and soybean are being grown in the USA, Canada and other predominantly grain exporting countries. Although the amount of farmland devoted to production of biotechnology-derived crops continues to increase, lingering concerns that unintended consequences may occur provide the EU and most grain-importing countries with justification to regulate these crops. Legislation in the EU requires traceability of grains/oilseeds, food and feed products, and labelling, when a threshold level of 0.9% w/w of genetically engineered trait is demonstrated to be present in an analytical sample. The GE content is routinely determined by quantitative PCR (qPCR) and plant genomic DNA provides the template for the initial steps in this process. A plethora of DNA extraction methods exist for qPCR applications. Implementing standardized methods for detection of genetically engineered traits is necessary to facilitate grain marketing. The International Organization for Standardization draft standard 21571 identifies detergent-based methods and commercially available kits that are widely used for DNA extraction, but also indicates that adaptations may be necessary depending upon the sample matrix. This review assesses advantages and disadvantages of various commercially available DNA extraction kits, as well as modifications to published cetyltrimethylammonium bromide methods. Inhibitors are a major obstacle for efficient amplification in qPCR. The types of PCR inhibitors and techniques to minimize inhibition are discussed. Finally, accurate quantification of DNA for applications in qPCR is not trivial. Many confounders contribute to differences in analytical measurements when a particular DNA quantification method is applied and different methods do not always provide concordant results on the same DNA sample. How these differences impact measurement uncertainty in qPCR is considered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19789856     DOI: 10.1007/s00216-009-3150-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem        ISSN: 1618-2642            Impact factor:   4.142


  49 in total

1.  Comparing DNA extraction methods for analysis of botanical materials found in anti-diabetic supplements.

Authors:  Jose P Llongueras; Saraswathy Nair; Dayana Salas-Leiva; Andrea E Schwarzbach
Journal:  Mol Biotechnol       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 2.695

2.  Methodological Guidelines for Accurate Detection of Viruses in Wild Plant Species.

Authors:  Christelle Lacroix; Kurra Renner; Ellen Cole; Eric W Seabloom; Elizabeth T Borer; Carolyn M Malmstrom
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2016-01-15       Impact factor: 4.792

3.  Molecular Detection of Feline Leukemia Virus in Oral, Conjunctival, and Rectal Mucosae Provides Results Comparable to Detection in Blood.

Authors:  Raphael Mattoso Victor; Juliana Marques Bicalho; Manuela Bamberg Andrade; Bruna Lopes Bueno; Luiza Rodrigues Alves de Abreu; Adriane Pimenta da Costa Val Bicalho; Jenner Karlisson Pimenta Dos Reis
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2020-01-28       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 4.  Molecular detection and genotyping of noroviruses.

Authors:  Ambroos Stals; Elisabeth Mathijs; Leen Baert; Nadine Botteldoorn; Sarah Denayer; Axel Mauroy; Alexandra Scipioni; Georges Daube; Katelijne Dierick; Lieve Herman; Els Van Coillie; Etienne Thiry; Mieke Uyttendaele
Journal:  Food Environ Virol       Date:  2012-11-04       Impact factor: 2.778

5.  Norovirus GII.Pe Genotype: Tracking a Foodborne Outbreak on a Cruise Ship Through Molecular Epidemiology, Brazil, 2014.

Authors:  Simone Guadagnucci Morillo; Adriana Luchs; Audrey Cilli; Cibele Daniel Ribeiro; Rita de Cássia Compagnoli Carmona; Maria do Carmo Sampaio Tavares Timenetsky
Journal:  Food Environ Virol       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 2.778

6.  Utility of PCR in diagnosis of invasive fungal infections: real-life data from a multicenter study.

Authors:  Cornelia Lass-Flörl; Wolfgang Mutschlechner; Maria Aigner; Katharina Grif; Claudia Marth; Michael Girschikofsky; Wilhelm Grander; Richard Greil; Gudrun Russ; Peter Cerkl; Mirjam Eller; Gabriele Kropshofer; Stephan Eschertzhuber; Hermann Kathrein; Stefan Schmid; Ronny Beer; Ingo Lorenz; Igor Theurl; David Nachbaur
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2012-12-26       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Development and validation of real-time PCR screening methods for detection of cry1A.105 and cry2Ab2 genes in genetically modified organisms.

Authors:  Andréia Z Dinon; Theo W Prins; Jeroen P van Dijk; Ana Carolina M Arisi; Ingrid M J Scholtens; Esther J Kok
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2011-03-29       Impact factor: 4.142

8.  Enhanced analysis of real-time PCR data by using a variable efficiency model: FPK-PCR.

Authors:  Antoon Lievens; S Van Aelst; M Van den Bulcke; E Goetghebeur
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2011-11-18       Impact factor: 16.971

9.  Simulation of between repeat variability in real time PCR reactions.

Authors:  Antoon Lievens; Stefan Van Aelst; Marc Van den Bulcke; Els Goetghebeur
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-26       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  DNA extract characterization process for microbial detection methods development and validation.

Authors:  Nathan D Olson; Jayne B Morrow
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2012-12-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.