Cargando…

A comparison of the efficiency of five different commercial DNA extraction kits for extraction of DNA from faecal samples

Differences in the composition of the gut microbiota have been associated with a range of diseases using culture-independent methods. Reliable extraction of nucleic acid is a key step in identifying the composition of the faecal microbiota. Five widely used commercial deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) ext...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Claassen, Shantelle, du Toit, Elloise, Kaba, Mamadou, Moodley, Clinton, Zar, Heather J., Nicol, Mark P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier Biomedical 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5809576/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23684993
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2013.05.008
_version_ 1783299590631456768
author Claassen, Shantelle
du Toit, Elloise
Kaba, Mamadou
Moodley, Clinton
Zar, Heather J.
Nicol, Mark P.
author_facet Claassen, Shantelle
du Toit, Elloise
Kaba, Mamadou
Moodley, Clinton
Zar, Heather J.
Nicol, Mark P.
author_sort Claassen, Shantelle
collection PubMed
description Differences in the composition of the gut microbiota have been associated with a range of diseases using culture-independent methods. Reliable extraction of nucleic acid is a key step in identifying the composition of the faecal microbiota. Five widely used commercial deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) extraction kits (QIAsymphony® Virus/Bacteria Midi Kit (kit QS), ZR Fecal DNA MiniPrep™ (kit Z), QIAamp® DNA Stool Mini Kit (kit QA), Ultraclean® Fecal DNA Isolation Kit (kit U) and PowerSoil® DNA Isolation Kit (kit P)) were evaluated, using human faecal samples. Yield, purity and integrity of total genomic DNA were compared spectrophotometrically and using gel electrophoresis. Three bacteria, commonly found in human faeces were quantified using real time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and total bacterial diversity was studied using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) as well as terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP). The measurements of DNA yield and purity exhibited variations between the five kits tested in this study. Automated kit QS exhibited the best quality and highest quantity of DNA. All kits were shown to be reproducible with CV values ≤ 0.46 for DNA extraction. qPCR results showed that all kits were uniformly efficient for extracting DNA from the selected target bacteria. DGGE and T-RFLP produced the highest diversity scores for DNA extracted using kit Z (H′ = 2.30 and 1.27) and kit QS (H′ = 2.16 and 0.94), which also extracted the highest DNA yields compared to the other kits assessed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5809576
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Elsevier Biomedical
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58095762018-02-14 A comparison of the efficiency of five different commercial DNA extraction kits for extraction of DNA from faecal samples Claassen, Shantelle du Toit, Elloise Kaba, Mamadou Moodley, Clinton Zar, Heather J. Nicol, Mark P. J Microbiol Methods Article Differences in the composition of the gut microbiota have been associated with a range of diseases using culture-independent methods. Reliable extraction of nucleic acid is a key step in identifying the composition of the faecal microbiota. Five widely used commercial deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) extraction kits (QIAsymphony® Virus/Bacteria Midi Kit (kit QS), ZR Fecal DNA MiniPrep™ (kit Z), QIAamp® DNA Stool Mini Kit (kit QA), Ultraclean® Fecal DNA Isolation Kit (kit U) and PowerSoil® DNA Isolation Kit (kit P)) were evaluated, using human faecal samples. Yield, purity and integrity of total genomic DNA were compared spectrophotometrically and using gel electrophoresis. Three bacteria, commonly found in human faeces were quantified using real time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and total bacterial diversity was studied using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) as well as terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP). The measurements of DNA yield and purity exhibited variations between the five kits tested in this study. Automated kit QS exhibited the best quality and highest quantity of DNA. All kits were shown to be reproducible with CV values ≤ 0.46 for DNA extraction. qPCR results showed that all kits were uniformly efficient for extracting DNA from the selected target bacteria. DGGE and T-RFLP produced the highest diversity scores for DNA extracted using kit Z (H′ = 2.30 and 1.27) and kit QS (H′ = 2.16 and 0.94), which also extracted the highest DNA yields compared to the other kits assessed. Elsevier Biomedical 2013-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5809576/ /pubmed/23684993 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2013.05.008 Text en © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Claassen, Shantelle
du Toit, Elloise
Kaba, Mamadou
Moodley, Clinton
Zar, Heather J.
Nicol, Mark P.
A comparison of the efficiency of five different commercial DNA extraction kits for extraction of DNA from faecal samples
title A comparison of the efficiency of five different commercial DNA extraction kits for extraction of DNA from faecal samples
title_full A comparison of the efficiency of five different commercial DNA extraction kits for extraction of DNA from faecal samples
title_fullStr A comparison of the efficiency of five different commercial DNA extraction kits for extraction of DNA from faecal samples
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of the efficiency of five different commercial DNA extraction kits for extraction of DNA from faecal samples
title_short A comparison of the efficiency of five different commercial DNA extraction kits for extraction of DNA from faecal samples
title_sort comparison of the efficiency of five different commercial dna extraction kits for extraction of dna from faecal samples
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5809576/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23684993
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2013.05.008
work_keys_str_mv AT claassenshantelle acomparisonoftheefficiencyoffivedifferentcommercialdnaextractionkitsforextractionofdnafromfaecalsamples
AT dutoitelloise acomparisonoftheefficiencyoffivedifferentcommercialdnaextractionkitsforextractionofdnafromfaecalsamples
AT kabamamadou acomparisonoftheefficiencyoffivedifferentcommercialdnaextractionkitsforextractionofdnafromfaecalsamples
AT moodleyclinton acomparisonoftheefficiencyoffivedifferentcommercialdnaextractionkitsforextractionofdnafromfaecalsamples
AT zarheatherj acomparisonoftheefficiencyoffivedifferentcommercialdnaextractionkitsforextractionofdnafromfaecalsamples
AT nicolmarkp acomparisonoftheefficiencyoffivedifferentcommercialdnaextractionkitsforextractionofdnafromfaecalsamples
AT claassenshantelle comparisonoftheefficiencyoffivedifferentcommercialdnaextractionkitsforextractionofdnafromfaecalsamples
AT dutoitelloise comparisonoftheefficiencyoffivedifferentcommercialdnaextractionkitsforextractionofdnafromfaecalsamples
AT kabamamadou comparisonoftheefficiencyoffivedifferentcommercialdnaextractionkitsforextractionofdnafromfaecalsamples
AT moodleyclinton comparisonoftheefficiencyoffivedifferentcommercialdnaextractionkitsforextractionofdnafromfaecalsamples
AT zarheatherj comparisonoftheefficiencyoffivedifferentcommercialdnaextractionkitsforextractionofdnafromfaecalsamples
AT nicolmarkp comparisonoftheefficiencyoffivedifferentcommercialdnaextractionkitsforextractionofdnafromfaecalsamples