Cargando…

Optimising Bacterial DNA Extraction from Faecal Samples: Comparison of Three Methods

Culture independent methods are used widely in diagnostic laboratories for infectious disease Isolation of genomic DNA from clinical samples is the first and important step in the procedure. Several procedures for extracting DNA from faecal samples have been described, including different mechanical...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Smith, Birgitte, Li, Nan, Andersen, Anders Schou, Slotved, Hans Christian, Krogfelt, Karen Angeliki
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Bentham Open 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106334/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21643498
http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874285801105010014
_version_ 1782204764686123008
author Smith, Birgitte
Li, Nan
Andersen, Anders Schou
Slotved, Hans Christian
Krogfelt, Karen Angeliki
author_facet Smith, Birgitte
Li, Nan
Andersen, Anders Schou
Slotved, Hans Christian
Krogfelt, Karen Angeliki
author_sort Smith, Birgitte
collection PubMed
description Culture independent methods are used widely in diagnostic laboratories for infectious disease Isolation of genomic DNA from clinical samples is the first and important step in the procedure. Several procedures for extracting DNA from faecal samples have been described, including different mechanical cell disruptors. To our knowledge, the use of TissueLyser as a mechanical disruptor on faecal samples before DNA extraction has not been previously described. The purpose of the study was to implement a method for preparing faecal samples for optimal DNA extraction. Thus, three different procedures for extracting DNA from human faeces were compared. This was done either by using the mechanical disrupter by Mini BeadBeater 8, or the TissueLyser both followed by DNA purification using QIAamp DNA stool MiniKit, in comparison with DNA extractions using QIAamp DNA stool MiniKit without any prior mechanical disruption, according to manufacturer’s instructions. The obtained DNA from the three procedures was analysed by DGGE, and the number of bands was compared between each procedure. There was no significant difference between the numbers of bacterial bands obtained from DGGE when using a TissueLyser or Mini BeadBeater 8, so the two different mechanical cell disruptors can be used comparably when isolating bacterial DNA from faecal samples. The QIAamp DNA stool MiniKit alone resulted in a reduced number of bands compared to the two mechanical disruption methods.
format Text
id pubmed-3106334
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Bentham Open
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31063342011-06-03 Optimising Bacterial DNA Extraction from Faecal Samples: Comparison of Three Methods Smith, Birgitte Li, Nan Andersen, Anders Schou Slotved, Hans Christian Krogfelt, Karen Angeliki Open Microbiol J Article Culture independent methods are used widely in diagnostic laboratories for infectious disease Isolation of genomic DNA from clinical samples is the first and important step in the procedure. Several procedures for extracting DNA from faecal samples have been described, including different mechanical cell disruptors. To our knowledge, the use of TissueLyser as a mechanical disruptor on faecal samples before DNA extraction has not been previously described. The purpose of the study was to implement a method for preparing faecal samples for optimal DNA extraction. Thus, three different procedures for extracting DNA from human faeces were compared. This was done either by using the mechanical disrupter by Mini BeadBeater 8, or the TissueLyser both followed by DNA purification using QIAamp DNA stool MiniKit, in comparison with DNA extractions using QIAamp DNA stool MiniKit without any prior mechanical disruption, according to manufacturer’s instructions. The obtained DNA from the three procedures was analysed by DGGE, and the number of bands was compared between each procedure. There was no significant difference between the numbers of bacterial bands obtained from DGGE when using a TissueLyser or Mini BeadBeater 8, so the two different mechanical cell disruptors can be used comparably when isolating bacterial DNA from faecal samples. The QIAamp DNA stool MiniKit alone resulted in a reduced number of bands compared to the two mechanical disruption methods. Bentham Open 2011-04-22 /pmc/articles/PMC3106334/ /pubmed/21643498 http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874285801105010014 Text en © Smith et al.; Licensee Bentham Open. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Article
Smith, Birgitte
Li, Nan
Andersen, Anders Schou
Slotved, Hans Christian
Krogfelt, Karen Angeliki
Optimising Bacterial DNA Extraction from Faecal Samples: Comparison of Three Methods
title Optimising Bacterial DNA Extraction from Faecal Samples: Comparison of Three Methods
title_full Optimising Bacterial DNA Extraction from Faecal Samples: Comparison of Three Methods
title_fullStr Optimising Bacterial DNA Extraction from Faecal Samples: Comparison of Three Methods
title_full_unstemmed Optimising Bacterial DNA Extraction from Faecal Samples: Comparison of Three Methods
title_short Optimising Bacterial DNA Extraction from Faecal Samples: Comparison of Three Methods
title_sort optimising bacterial dna extraction from faecal samples: comparison of three methods
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106334/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21643498
http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874285801105010014
work_keys_str_mv AT smithbirgitte optimisingbacterialdnaextractionfromfaecalsamplescomparisonofthreemethods
AT linan optimisingbacterialdnaextractionfromfaecalsamplescomparisonofthreemethods
AT andersenandersschou optimisingbacterialdnaextractionfromfaecalsamplescomparisonofthreemethods
AT slotvedhanschristian optimisingbacterialdnaextractionfromfaecalsamplescomparisonofthreemethods
AT krogfeltkarenangeliki optimisingbacterialdnaextractionfromfaecalsamplescomparisonofthreemethods