| Literature DB >> 29213298 |
Kelvin T Chiong1,2, Mona B Damaj1, Carmen S Padilla1, Carlos A Avila1,3, Shankar R Pant1, Kranthi K Mandadi1,4, Ninfa R Ramos1, Denise V Carvalho1,5, T Erik Mirkov1,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several high-throughput molecular genetic analyses rely on high-quality genomic DNA. Copurification of other molecules can negatively impact the functionality of plant DNA preparations employed in these procedures. Isolating DNA from agronomically important crops, such as sugarcane, rice, citrus, potato and tomato is a challenge due to the presence of high fiber, polysaccharides, or secondary metabolites. We present a simplified, rapid and reproducible SDS-based method that provides high-quality and -quantity of DNA from small amounts of leaf tissue, as required by the emerging biotechnology and molecular genetic applications.Entities:
Keywords: Citrus sinensis; Genomic DNA extraction; Oryza sativa; Polyphenols; Polysaccharides; Saccharum spp. hybrids; Simplified SDS method; Solanum lycopersicum; Solanum tuberosum
Year: 2017 PMID: 29213298 PMCID: PMC5712126 DOI: 10.1186/s13007-017-0255-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Methods ISSN: 1746-4811 Impact factor: 4.993
Major steps of the TENS-CO protocol used for plant genomic DNA isolation
| (1) Extraction | TENS buffera and COb |
| 5 M potassium acetate | |
| (2) Precipitation | 3 M sodium acetate (pH 5.2) (0.1× volume) |
| Ethanol (2.0× volume) |
a TENS buffer: 100 mM Tris (hydroxymethyl) aminomethane (Tris Base) (pH 8.0), 50 mM ethylenediamine-tetraacetic acid (EDTA) (pH 8.0), 500 mM sodium chloride (NaCl), 1% (w/v) sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), and 2% (v/v) 2-mercaptoethanol
b CO chloroform:octanol (24:1)
Fig. 1Assessment of the integrity of the genomic DNA isolated with the TENS-CO method by gel electrophoresis. DNA extracted from leaves of different plant species using TENS-CO after freezing (snap) in liquid nitrogen (a, b) or to – 80 °C (b) as well as two commercial DNA isolation kits (c) was electrophoresed on a 0.8% (w/v) agarose gel stained with ethidium bromide (approximately 300–400 ng per lane)
Comparison of the TENS-CO method with standard DNA isolation procedures for the crop species used in the current study
| Method | DNA yield (µg/mg tissue) | DNA purity | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A260:A230 | A260:A280 | ||
|
| |||
| Sugarcane ( | |||
| TENS-CO | 0.46 ± 0.05 | 2.04 ± 0.11 | 1.85 ± 0.01 |
| Standard SDS (modified from Tai and Tanksley [ | 0.10 ± 0.01 | 1.61 ± 0.07 | 1.96 ± 0.02 |
|
| |||
| Rice ( | |||
| TENS-CO | 0.35 ± 0.05 | 2.18 ± 0.07 | 1.93 ± 0.01 |
| MO BIO PowerPlant Pro Kit | 0.10 ± 0.01 | 2.02 ± 0.05 | 1.84 ± 0.01 |
|
| |||
| Sweet orange ( | |||
| TENS-CO | 0.64 ± 0.08 | 2.08 ± 0.04 | 2.00 ± 0.01 |
| Standard CTAB (modified from Chee et al. [ | 0.12 ± 0.01 | 2.32 ± 0.09 | 1.92 ± 0.02 |
|
| |||
| Potato ( | |||
| TENS-CO | 0.50 ± 0.04 | 2.23 ± 0.006 | 1.91 ± 0.04 |
| MO BIO PowerPlant Pro Kit | 0.05 ± 0.004 | 2.41 ± 0.05 | 1.94 ± 0.03 |
| Synergy Plant DNA Kit | 0.20 ± 0.01 | 2.18 ± 0.05 | 1.93 ± 0.02 |
| Tomato ( | |||
| TENS-CO | 0.66 ± 0.06 | 2.10 ± 0.05 | 1.93 ± 0.01 |
| MO BIO PowerPlant Pro Kit | 0.05 ± 0.004 | 1.87 ± 0.08 | 1.80 ± 0.01 |
| Synergy Plant DNA Kit | 0.11 ± 0.01 | 1.93 ± 0.03 | 1.81 ± 0.01 |
CTAB cetyltrimethylammonium bromide and SDS sodium dodecyl sulfate
Fig. 2Southern blot analysis of HindIII-digested genomic DNA of representative sugarcane lines overexpressing the gusA reporter gene hybridized with a 32P-labeled DNA probe specific for gusA. DNA (15 µg each lane) was digested, blotted, hybridized, washed and imaged as described in methods
Fig. 3Southern blot analysis of SacI-digested genomic DNA of representative citrus (sweet orange) lines overexpressing the gusA reporter gene hybridized with a 32P-labeled DNA probe specific for gusA. DNA (15 µg each lane) was digested, blotted, hybridized, washed and imaged as described in methods
Fig. 4Quantification of the Zebra chip bacterium Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum (Lso) in potato using quantitative PCR. Lso is detected in leaf DNA extracted with the TENS-CO method (a) or the standard CTAB-based method (modified from Chee et al. [43]) (b). Error bars indicate standard error of four biological replicates and at least three technical replicates
Fig. 5Marker-assisted selection using the co-dominant SCAR marker P6-25 linked to Ty3 resistance gene in tomato [57]. PCR amplicons from DNA extracted with the TENS-CO method (a) or the standard CTAB-based method (modified from Chee et al. [43]) (b); were separated by electrophoresis on a 1.5% (w/v) agarose gel