Literature DB >> 31004622

Influence of swabbing solution and swab type on DNA recovery from rigid environmental surfaces.

Hee Sang You1, Song Hee Lee1, Yeon Jeong Ok2, Hee-Gyu Kang1, Ho Jung Sung1, Ji Yeong Lee3, Sang Sun Kang4, Sung Hee Hyun5.   

Abstract

Determination of the metagenome has become an important component of forensic identification, which requires efficient environmental sampling techniques. Therefore, in this study, we compared the efficiency of sample collection using swabbing with cotton swabs and three types of medical swabs (S7, S22, S24) along with three different solutions: phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), 1% Tween 20 + 1% glycerol in PBS (TG), and GS commercial solution (Noble Bio, Hwaseong, Republic of Korea). Combinations of the three solutions with the three types of swabs were tested at different volumes (cotton swab, S7: 0, 30, 50, 70 μL; S22, S24: 0, 70, 100, 130 μL). Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus were selected as representative environmental microbial samples, and the number of colony-forming units (CFUs), DNA concentration, and DNA copy numbers were compared across groups. The sampling process had a clear effect on the efficiency of extraction, which allowed for determination of a more efficient sample sampling method. In particular, cotton swabs showed 2-10-fold greater CFUs of both species than the medical swabs, and resulted in significantly greater amounts of extracted DNA. TG was found to be the most efficient solution for bacterial DNA extraction, with higher CFUs and DNA obtained than with the other three solutions at all volumes tested. This study highlights the need for a standardized sampling method that can be applied to all environmental samples, especially for microbial quantification, and provides valuable reference data for the efficient collection of environmental samples for metagenomic analyses in microbial-based forensic assessments.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CFUs; Collection efficiency; DNA concentration; DNA copy; Metagenomics; Microbial forensics; Swab

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31004622     DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2019.04.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Microbiol Methods        ISSN: 0167-7012            Impact factor:   2.363


  7 in total

1.  Comparison of Swabbing Solution Volume and gDNA Extraction Kits on DNA Recovery from Rigid Surface.

Authors:  Yeon Jeong Ok; Hee Sang You; Song Hee Lee; Ho Joong Sung; Hee-Gyoo Kang; Sung Hee Hyun
Journal:  Indian J Microbiol       Date:  2020-01-07       Impact factor: 2.461

2.  Next-Generation Sequencing Results Vary Between Cultured and Uncultured Microbes.

Authors:  Hee Sang You; Song Hee Lee; Young Ju Lee; Han Lee; Sang Sun Kang; Sung Hee Hyun
Journal:  Curr Microbiol       Date:  2022-05-07       Impact factor: 2.188

Review 3.  Biowarfare, bioterrorism and biocrime: A historical overview on microbial harmful applications.

Authors:  Manuela Oliveira; Gabriella Mason-Buck; David Ballard; Wojciech Branicki; António Amorim
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2020-06-20       Impact factor: 2.395

4.  A Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of α-Viniferin in Staphylococcus aureus - Specific Decolonization without Depleting the Normal Microbiota of Nares.

Authors:  Md Abdur Rahim; Hoonhee Seo; Sukyung Kim; Yoon Kyoung Jeong; Hanieh Tajdozian; Mijung Kim; Saebim Lee; Ho-Yeon Song
Journal:  Pol J Microbiol       Date:  2021-03-19

Review 5.  Complex interactions between the microbiome and cancer immune therapy.

Authors:  Drew J Schwartz; Olivia N Rebeck; Gautam Dantas
Journal:  Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci       Date:  2019-09-17       Impact factor: 6.250

Review 6.  Challenges in Human Skin Microbial Profiling for Forensic Science: A Review.

Authors:  Ana Neckovic; Roland A H van Oorschot; Bianca Szkuta; Annalisa Durdle
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2020-08-28       Impact factor: 4.096

7.  Individual Identification with Short Tandem Repeat Analysis and Collection of Secondary Information Using Microbiome Analysis.

Authors:  Solip Lee; Heesang You; Songhee Lee; Yeongju Lee; Hee-Gyoo Kang; Ho-Joong Sung; Jiwon Choi; Sunghee Hyun
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-29       Impact factor: 4.096

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.