Cargando…

Tenfold difference in DNA recovery rate: systematic comparison of whole blood vs. dried blood spot sample collection for malaria molecular surveillance

BACKGROUND: Molecular and genomic surveillance is becoming increasingly used to track malaria control and elimination efforts. Blood samples can be collected as whole blood and stored at − 20 °C until DNA extraction, or as dried blood spots (DBS), circumventing the need for a cold chain. Despite the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Holzschuh, Aurel, Koepfli, Cristian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8922754/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35292038
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12936-022-04122-9
_version_ 1784669557542092800
author Holzschuh, Aurel
Koepfli, Cristian
author_facet Holzschuh, Aurel
Koepfli, Cristian
author_sort Holzschuh, Aurel
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Molecular and genomic surveillance is becoming increasingly used to track malaria control and elimination efforts. Blood samples can be collected as whole blood and stored at − 20 °C until DNA extraction, or as dried blood spots (DBS), circumventing the need for a cold chain. Despite the wide use of either method, systematic comparisons of how the method of blood sample preservation affects the limit of detection (LOD) of molecular diagnosis and the proportion of DNA recovered for downstream applications are lacking. METHODS: Extractions based on spin columns, magnetic beads, Tween-Chelex, and direct PCR without prior extraction were compared for whole blood and dried blood spots (DBS) using dilution series of Plasmodium falciparum culture samples. Extracted DNA was quantified by qPCR and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR). RESULTS: DNA recovery was 5- to 10-fold higher for whole blood compared to DBS, resulting in a 2- to 3-fold lower LOD for both extraction methods compared to DBS. For whole blood, a magnetic bead-based method resulted in a DNA recovery rate of 88–98% when extracting from whole blood compared to 17–33% for a spin-column based method. For extractions from DBS, the magnetic bead-based method resulted in 8–20% DNA recovery, while the spin-column based method resulted in only 2% DNA recovery. The Tween-Chelex method was superior to other methods with 15–21% DNA recovery, and even more sensitive than extractions from whole blood samples. The direct PCR method was found to have the lowest LOD overall for both, whole blood and DBS. CONCLUSIONS: Pronounced differences in LOD and DNA yield need to be considered when comparing prevalence estimates based on molecular methods and when selecting sampling protocols for other molecular surveillance applications. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12936-022-04122-9.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8922754
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89227542022-03-22 Tenfold difference in DNA recovery rate: systematic comparison of whole blood vs. dried blood spot sample collection for malaria molecular surveillance Holzschuh, Aurel Koepfli, Cristian Malar J Methodology BACKGROUND: Molecular and genomic surveillance is becoming increasingly used to track malaria control and elimination efforts. Blood samples can be collected as whole blood and stored at − 20 °C until DNA extraction, or as dried blood spots (DBS), circumventing the need for a cold chain. Despite the wide use of either method, systematic comparisons of how the method of blood sample preservation affects the limit of detection (LOD) of molecular diagnosis and the proportion of DNA recovered for downstream applications are lacking. METHODS: Extractions based on spin columns, magnetic beads, Tween-Chelex, and direct PCR without prior extraction were compared for whole blood and dried blood spots (DBS) using dilution series of Plasmodium falciparum culture samples. Extracted DNA was quantified by qPCR and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR). RESULTS: DNA recovery was 5- to 10-fold higher for whole blood compared to DBS, resulting in a 2- to 3-fold lower LOD for both extraction methods compared to DBS. For whole blood, a magnetic bead-based method resulted in a DNA recovery rate of 88–98% when extracting from whole blood compared to 17–33% for a spin-column based method. For extractions from DBS, the magnetic bead-based method resulted in 8–20% DNA recovery, while the spin-column based method resulted in only 2% DNA recovery. The Tween-Chelex method was superior to other methods with 15–21% DNA recovery, and even more sensitive than extractions from whole blood samples. The direct PCR method was found to have the lowest LOD overall for both, whole blood and DBS. CONCLUSIONS: Pronounced differences in LOD and DNA yield need to be considered when comparing prevalence estimates based on molecular methods and when selecting sampling protocols for other molecular surveillance applications. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12936-022-04122-9. BioMed Central 2022-03-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8922754/ /pubmed/35292038 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12936-022-04122-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis 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/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Methodology
Holzschuh, Aurel
Koepfli, Cristian
Tenfold difference in DNA recovery rate: systematic comparison of whole blood vs. dried blood spot sample collection for malaria molecular surveillance
title Tenfold difference in DNA recovery rate: systematic comparison of whole blood vs. dried blood spot sample collection for malaria molecular surveillance
title_full Tenfold difference in DNA recovery rate: systematic comparison of whole blood vs. dried blood spot sample collection for malaria molecular surveillance
title_fullStr Tenfold difference in DNA recovery rate: systematic comparison of whole blood vs. dried blood spot sample collection for malaria molecular surveillance
title_full_unstemmed Tenfold difference in DNA recovery rate: systematic comparison of whole blood vs. dried blood spot sample collection for malaria molecular surveillance
title_short Tenfold difference in DNA recovery rate: systematic comparison of whole blood vs. dried blood spot sample collection for malaria molecular surveillance
title_sort tenfold difference in dna recovery rate: systematic comparison of whole blood vs. dried blood spot sample collection for malaria molecular surveillance
topic Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8922754/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35292038
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12936-022-04122-9
work_keys_str_mv AT holzschuhaurel tenfolddifferenceindnarecoveryratesystematiccomparisonofwholebloodvsdriedbloodspotsamplecollectionformalariamolecularsurveillance
AT koepflicristian tenfolddifferenceindnarecoveryratesystematiccomparisonofwholebloodvsdriedbloodspotsamplecollectionformalariamolecularsurveillance