Cargando…

Evaluation of DNA Extraction Methods for Reliable Quantification of Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Detection and quantification of DNA biomarkers relies heavily on the yield and quality of DNA obtained by extraction from different matrices. Although a large number of studies have compared the yields of different extraction methods, the repeatability and intermediate precision of these methods hav...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bogožalec Košir, Alexandra, Lužnik, Dane, Tomič, Viktorija, Milavec, Mojca
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10136035/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37185538
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bios13040463
_version_ 1785032119573020672
author Bogožalec Košir, Alexandra
Lužnik, Dane
Tomič, Viktorija
Milavec, Mojca
author_facet Bogožalec Košir, Alexandra
Lužnik, Dane
Tomič, Viktorija
Milavec, Mojca
author_sort Bogožalec Košir, Alexandra
collection PubMed
description Detection and quantification of DNA biomarkers relies heavily on the yield and quality of DNA obtained by extraction from different matrices. Although a large number of studies have compared the yields of different extraction methods, the repeatability and intermediate precision of these methods have been largely overlooked. In the present study, five extraction methods were evaluated, using digital PCR, to determine their efficiency in extracting DNA from three different Gram-negative bacteria in sputum samples. The performance of two automated methods (GXT NA and QuickPick genomic DNA extraction kit, using Arrow and KingFisher Duo automated systems, respectively), two manual kit-based methods (QIAamp DNA mini kit; DNeasy UltraClean microbial kit), and one manual non-kit method (CTAB), was assessed. While GXT NA extraction kit and the CTAB method have the highest DNA yield, they did not meet the strict criteria for repeatability, intermediate precision, and measurement uncertainty for all three studied bacteria. However, due to limited clinical samples, a compromise is necessary, and the GXT NA extraction kit was found to be the method of choice. The study also showed that dPCR allowed for accurate determination of extraction method repeatability, which can help standardize molecular diagnostic approaches. Additionally, the determination of absolute copy numbers facilitated the calculation of measurement uncertainty, which was found to be influenced by the DNA extraction method used.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10136035
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101360352023-04-28 Evaluation of DNA Extraction Methods for Reliable Quantification of Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa Bogožalec Košir, Alexandra Lužnik, Dane Tomič, Viktorija Milavec, Mojca Biosensors (Basel) Article Detection and quantification of DNA biomarkers relies heavily on the yield and quality of DNA obtained by extraction from different matrices. Although a large number of studies have compared the yields of different extraction methods, the repeatability and intermediate precision of these methods have been largely overlooked. In the present study, five extraction methods were evaluated, using digital PCR, to determine their efficiency in extracting DNA from three different Gram-negative bacteria in sputum samples. The performance of two automated methods (GXT NA and QuickPick genomic DNA extraction kit, using Arrow and KingFisher Duo automated systems, respectively), two manual kit-based methods (QIAamp DNA mini kit; DNeasy UltraClean microbial kit), and one manual non-kit method (CTAB), was assessed. While GXT NA extraction kit and the CTAB method have the highest DNA yield, they did not meet the strict criteria for repeatability, intermediate precision, and measurement uncertainty for all three studied bacteria. However, due to limited clinical samples, a compromise is necessary, and the GXT NA extraction kit was found to be the method of choice. The study also showed that dPCR allowed for accurate determination of extraction method repeatability, which can help standardize molecular diagnostic approaches. Additionally, the determination of absolute copy numbers facilitated the calculation of measurement uncertainty, which was found to be influenced by the DNA extraction method used. MDPI 2023-04-06 /pmc/articles/PMC10136035/ /pubmed/37185538 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bios13040463 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Bogožalec Košir, Alexandra
Lužnik, Dane
Tomič, Viktorija
Milavec, Mojca
Evaluation of DNA Extraction Methods for Reliable Quantification of Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa
title Evaluation of DNA Extraction Methods for Reliable Quantification of Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa
title_full Evaluation of DNA Extraction Methods for Reliable Quantification of Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa
title_fullStr Evaluation of DNA Extraction Methods for Reliable Quantification of Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of DNA Extraction Methods for Reliable Quantification of Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa
title_short Evaluation of DNA Extraction Methods for Reliable Quantification of Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa
title_sort evaluation of dna extraction methods for reliable quantification of acinetobacter baumannii, klebsiella pneumoniae, and pseudomonas aeruginosa
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10136035/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37185538
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bios13040463
work_keys_str_mv AT bogozaleckosiralexandra evaluationofdnaextractionmethodsforreliablequantificationofacinetobacterbaumanniiklebsiellapneumoniaeandpseudomonasaeruginosa
AT luznikdane evaluationofdnaextractionmethodsforreliablequantificationofacinetobacterbaumanniiklebsiellapneumoniaeandpseudomonasaeruginosa
AT tomicviktorija evaluationofdnaextractionmethodsforreliablequantificationofacinetobacterbaumanniiklebsiellapneumoniaeandpseudomonasaeruginosa
AT milavecmojca evaluationofdnaextractionmethodsforreliablequantificationofacinetobacterbaumanniiklebsiellapneumoniaeandpseudomonasaeruginosa