Cargando…

A comparison of Lyse-It to other cellular sample preparation, bacterial lysing, and DNA fragmentation technologies

The ability for safe and rapid pathogenic sample transportation and subsequent detection is an increasing challenge throughout the world. Herein, we describe and use bead-beating, vortex, sonication, 903 protein saver cards, and Lyse-It methods, aiming to inactivate Gram-positive and -negative bacte...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Santaus, Tonya M., Li, Shan, Saha, Lahari, Chen, Wilbur H., Bhagat, Siya, Stine, O. Colin, Geddes, Chris D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6650070/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31335892
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220102
_version_ 1783438091720065024
author Santaus, Tonya M.
Li, Shan
Saha, Lahari
Chen, Wilbur H.
Bhagat, Siya
Stine, O. Colin
Geddes, Chris D.
author_facet Santaus, Tonya M.
Li, Shan
Saha, Lahari
Chen, Wilbur H.
Bhagat, Siya
Stine, O. Colin
Geddes, Chris D.
author_sort Santaus, Tonya M.
collection PubMed
description The ability for safe and rapid pathogenic sample transportation and subsequent detection is an increasing challenge throughout the world. Herein, we describe and use bead-beating, vortex, sonication, 903 protein saver cards, and Lyse-It methods, aiming to inactivate Gram-positive and -negative bacteria with subsequent genome DNA (quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction) qPCR detection. The basic concepts behind the four chosen technologies is their versatility, cost, and ease of use in developed and underdeveloped countries. The four methods target the testing of bacterial resilience, cellular extraction from general and complex media and subsequent DNA extraction for qPCR detection and amplification. These results demonstrate that conventional high temperature heating, 903 protein saver cards, and Lyse-It are all viable options for inactivating bacterial growth for safe shipping. Additionally, Lyse-It was found to be particularly useful as this technology can inactivate bacteria, extract cells from 903 protein saver cards, lyse bacterial cells, and additionally keep genomic DNA viable for qPCR detection.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6650070
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66500702019-07-25 A comparison of Lyse-It to other cellular sample preparation, bacterial lysing, and DNA fragmentation technologies Santaus, Tonya M. Li, Shan Saha, Lahari Chen, Wilbur H. Bhagat, Siya Stine, O. Colin Geddes, Chris D. PLoS One Research Article The ability for safe and rapid pathogenic sample transportation and subsequent detection is an increasing challenge throughout the world. Herein, we describe and use bead-beating, vortex, sonication, 903 protein saver cards, and Lyse-It methods, aiming to inactivate Gram-positive and -negative bacteria with subsequent genome DNA (quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction) qPCR detection. The basic concepts behind the four chosen technologies is their versatility, cost, and ease of use in developed and underdeveloped countries. The four methods target the testing of bacterial resilience, cellular extraction from general and complex media and subsequent DNA extraction for qPCR detection and amplification. These results demonstrate that conventional high temperature heating, 903 protein saver cards, and Lyse-It are all viable options for inactivating bacterial growth for safe shipping. Additionally, Lyse-It was found to be particularly useful as this technology can inactivate bacteria, extract cells from 903 protein saver cards, lyse bacterial cells, and additionally keep genomic DNA viable for qPCR detection. Public Library of Science 2019-07-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6650070/ /pubmed/31335892 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220102 Text en © 2019 Santaus et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Santaus, Tonya M.
Li, Shan
Saha, Lahari
Chen, Wilbur H.
Bhagat, Siya
Stine, O. Colin
Geddes, Chris D.
A comparison of Lyse-It to other cellular sample preparation, bacterial lysing, and DNA fragmentation technologies
title A comparison of Lyse-It to other cellular sample preparation, bacterial lysing, and DNA fragmentation technologies
title_full A comparison of Lyse-It to other cellular sample preparation, bacterial lysing, and DNA fragmentation technologies
title_fullStr A comparison of Lyse-It to other cellular sample preparation, bacterial lysing, and DNA fragmentation technologies
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of Lyse-It to other cellular sample preparation, bacterial lysing, and DNA fragmentation technologies
title_short A comparison of Lyse-It to other cellular sample preparation, bacterial lysing, and DNA fragmentation technologies
title_sort comparison of lyse-it to other cellular sample preparation, bacterial lysing, and dna fragmentation technologies
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6650070/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31335892
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220102
work_keys_str_mv AT santaustonyam acomparisonoflyseittoothercellularsamplepreparationbacteriallysinganddnafragmentationtechnologies
AT lishan acomparisonoflyseittoothercellularsamplepreparationbacteriallysinganddnafragmentationtechnologies
AT sahalahari acomparisonoflyseittoothercellularsamplepreparationbacteriallysinganddnafragmentationtechnologies
AT chenwilburh acomparisonoflyseittoothercellularsamplepreparationbacteriallysinganddnafragmentationtechnologies
AT bhagatsiya acomparisonoflyseittoothercellularsamplepreparationbacteriallysinganddnafragmentationtechnologies
AT stineocolin acomparisonoflyseittoothercellularsamplepreparationbacteriallysinganddnafragmentationtechnologies
AT geddeschrisd acomparisonoflyseittoothercellularsamplepreparationbacteriallysinganddnafragmentationtechnologies
AT santaustonyam comparisonoflyseittoothercellularsamplepreparationbacteriallysinganddnafragmentationtechnologies
AT lishan comparisonoflyseittoothercellularsamplepreparationbacteriallysinganddnafragmentationtechnologies
AT sahalahari comparisonoflyseittoothercellularsamplepreparationbacteriallysinganddnafragmentationtechnologies
AT chenwilburh comparisonoflyseittoothercellularsamplepreparationbacteriallysinganddnafragmentationtechnologies
AT bhagatsiya comparisonoflyseittoothercellularsamplepreparationbacteriallysinganddnafragmentationtechnologies
AT stineocolin comparisonoflyseittoothercellularsamplepreparationbacteriallysinganddnafragmentationtechnologies
AT geddeschrisd comparisonoflyseittoothercellularsamplepreparationbacteriallysinganddnafragmentationtechnologies