Cargando…

Comparing DNA yield from fish scales following different extraction protocols

Studies on genetic diversity, adaptive potential and fitness of species have become a major tool in conservation biology. These studies require biological material containing a reliable source of DNA which can be extracted and analysed. Recently, non-invasive sampling has become the preferred sampli...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shuttleworth, Loraine, Oosthuizen, Carel Jakobus
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8857249/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35181723
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-06889-y
_version_ 1784654001422204928
author Shuttleworth, Loraine
Oosthuizen, Carel Jakobus
author_facet Shuttleworth, Loraine
Oosthuizen, Carel Jakobus
author_sort Shuttleworth, Loraine
collection PubMed
description Studies on genetic diversity, adaptive potential and fitness of species have become a major tool in conservation biology. These studies require biological material containing a reliable source of DNA which can be extracted and analysed. Recently, non-invasive sampling has become the preferred sampling method of such biological material; particularly when studying endangered species. Elasmoid scales from teleost fish are an example of non-invasive samples from which DNA can successfully be extracted. This study compared different extraction protocols to find an optimal method for extracting DNA from teleost fish scales. This was done with the intent to use the protocol that yielded the highest quantity of DNA on dried, archived scales. The protocols tested in this study included (1) phenol/chloroform with a TNES-urea digestion buffer, (2) phenol/chloroform with an amniocyte digestion buffer and (3) Qiagen DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit with variations in incubation times and temperatures of each protocol. While the phenol/chloroform with TNES-urea digestion buffer yielded significantly higher concentrations of DNA compared to the other protocols, all protocols followed in this study yielded sufficient quantities of DNA for further downstream applications. Therefore, while there are multiple viable options when selecting a DNA extraction protocol, each research project’s individual needs, requirements and resources need to be carefully considered in order to choose the most effective protocol.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8857249
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88572492022-02-22 Comparing DNA yield from fish scales following different extraction protocols Shuttleworth, Loraine Oosthuizen, Carel Jakobus Sci Rep Article Studies on genetic diversity, adaptive potential and fitness of species have become a major tool in conservation biology. These studies require biological material containing a reliable source of DNA which can be extracted and analysed. Recently, non-invasive sampling has become the preferred sampling method of such biological material; particularly when studying endangered species. Elasmoid scales from teleost fish are an example of non-invasive samples from which DNA can successfully be extracted. This study compared different extraction protocols to find an optimal method for extracting DNA from teleost fish scales. This was done with the intent to use the protocol that yielded the highest quantity of DNA on dried, archived scales. The protocols tested in this study included (1) phenol/chloroform with a TNES-urea digestion buffer, (2) phenol/chloroform with an amniocyte digestion buffer and (3) Qiagen DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit with variations in incubation times and temperatures of each protocol. While the phenol/chloroform with TNES-urea digestion buffer yielded significantly higher concentrations of DNA compared to the other protocols, all protocols followed in this study yielded sufficient quantities of DNA for further downstream applications. Therefore, while there are multiple viable options when selecting a DNA extraction protocol, each research project’s individual needs, requirements and resources need to be carefully considered in order to choose the most effective protocol. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-02-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8857249/ /pubmed/35181723 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-06889-y Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Shuttleworth, Loraine
Oosthuizen, Carel Jakobus
Comparing DNA yield from fish scales following different extraction protocols
title Comparing DNA yield from fish scales following different extraction protocols
title_full Comparing DNA yield from fish scales following different extraction protocols
title_fullStr Comparing DNA yield from fish scales following different extraction protocols
title_full_unstemmed Comparing DNA yield from fish scales following different extraction protocols
title_short Comparing DNA yield from fish scales following different extraction protocols
title_sort comparing dna yield from fish scales following different extraction protocols
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8857249/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35181723
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-06889-y
work_keys_str_mv AT shuttleworthloraine comparingdnayieldfromfishscalesfollowingdifferentextractionprotocols
AT oosthuizencareljakobus comparingdnayieldfromfishscalesfollowingdifferentextractionprotocols