Meade KG: technical note: comparative analyses of the quality and yield of genomic DNA from invasive and noninvasive, automated and manual extraction methods

Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Co. Meath, Ireland.
Journal of Dairy Science (Impact Factor: 2.57). 06/2011; 94(6):3159-65. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2010-3987
Source: PubMed


Several new automated methods have recently become available for high-throughput DNA extraction, including the Maxwell 16 System (Promega UK, Southampton, UK). The purpose of this report is to compare automated with manual DNA extraction methods, and invasive with noninvasive sample collection methods, in terms of DNA yield and quality. Milk, blood, and nasal swab samples were taken from 10 cows for DNA extraction. Nasal swabs were also taken from 10 calves and semen samples from 15 bulls for comparative purposes. The Performagene Livestock (DNA Genotek, Kanata, Ontario, Canada) method was compared with similar samples taken from the same animal using manual extraction methods. All samples were analyzed using both the Qubit Quantification Platform (Invitrogen Ltd., Paisley, UK) and NanoDrop spectrophotometer (NanoDrop Technologies, Inc., Wilmington, DE) to accurately assess DNA quality and quantity. In general, the automated Maxwell 16 System performed best, consistently yielding high quantity and quality DNA across the sample range tested. Average yields of 28.7, 10.3, and 19.2 μg of DNA were obtained from 450 μL of blood, 400 μL of milk, and a single straw of semen, respectively. The quality of DNA obtained from buffy coat and from semen was significantly higher with the automated method than with the manual methods (260/280 ratio of 1.9 and 1.8, respectively). Centrifugation of whole blood facilitated the concentration of leukocytes in the buffy coat, which significantly increased DNA yield after manual extraction. The Performagene method also yielded 18.4 and 49.8 μg of high quality (260/280 ratio of 1.8) DNA from the cow and calf nasal samples, respectively. These results show the advantages of noninvasive sample collection and automated methods for high-throughput extraction and biobanking of high quality DNA.

Download full-text


Available from: Cathriona Foley,
  • Source
    • "The two automated extraction platforms tested were the semi-automated QuickGene-Mini80™ (Autogen/FujiFilm, Holliston, MA) and the automated Maxwell®16 (Promega, Madison, WI) platforms. Both systems were designed to extract nucleic acids from various tissues and cell types in clinical labs (Affolabi et al. 2012) and both systems have proven successful for a wider variety of additional sample types including spores (Shipley et al. 2012), plant leaves, seeds, and fungi (Affolabi et al. 2012; Foley et al. 2011; Khokhar et al. 2011; Schagat et al. 2007). The manual kit, PowerBiofilm DNA Isolation Kit (MOBIO Laboratories, Carlsbad, CA), was designed to extract DNA from biofilm material and is representative of the kits widely used by environmental microbiologists (Ferrando and Tarlera 2009; McBeth et al. 2010). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The analysis of microbial assemblages in industrial, marine, and medical systems can inform decisions regarding quality control or mitigation. Modern molecular approaches to detect, characterize, and quantify microorganisms provide rapid and thorough measures unbiased by the need for cultivation. The requirement of timely extraction of high quality nucleic acids for molecular analysis is faced with specific challenges when used to study the influence of microorganisms on oil production. Production facilities are often ill equipped for nucleic acid extraction techniques, making the preservation and transportation of samples off-site a priority. As a potential solution, the possibility of extracting nucleic acids on-site using automated platforms was tested. The performance of two such platforms, the Fujifilm QuickGene-Mini80TM and Promega Maxwell(R)16 was compared to a widely used manual extraction kit, MOBIO PowerbiofilmTM DNA Isolation Kit, in terms of ease of operation, DNA quality, and microbial community composition. Three pipeline biofilm samples were chosen for these comparisons; two contained crude oil and corrosion products and the third transported seawater. Overall, the two more automated extraction platforms produced higher DNA yields than the manual approach. DNA quality was evaluated for amplification by quantitative PCR (qPCR) and end-point PCR to generate 454 pyrosequencing libraries for 16S rRNA microbial community analysis. Microbial community structure, as assessed by DGGE analysis and pyrosequencing, was comparable among the three extraction methods. Therefore, the use of automated extraction platforms should enhance the feasibility of rapidly evaluating microbial biofouling at remote locations or those with limited resources.
    AMB Express 11/2012; 2(1):60. DOI:10.1186/2191-0855-2-60
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Seed imported into the EU from countries growing genetically modified (gm) plants may contain traces of these gm crops. As a result of the zero tolerance policy of the EU, these products must be removed from the market. Along with the amount of biotech crops produced worldwide, the work load for seed surveillance authorities increases. Since the commonly used CTAB buffer-based extraction methods are manual and laborious, a large part of the work load is caused by DNA extraction. In order to reduce labour input and accelerate the DNA analysis workflow, we developed an automated CTAB buffer-based DNA isolation method for seed. Several isolation and chemistry parameters were altered to combine a thorough cell lysis, removal of inhibitors and a highly efficient binding of gDNA to paramagnetic beads. This optimised procedure was compared with manual CTAB buffer-based and Wizard-based DNA extraction methods for maize, soya bean and rapeseed. Automated DNA extraction was faster, less laborious and resulted, on average, in higher DNA yield and purity. The applicability of our method was successfully proven with in-house routine samples.
    European Food Research and Technology 04/2013; 236(4):1-8; DOI 10.1007/s00217-013-1916-y. DOI:10.1007/s00217-013-1916-y · 1.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Histopathological samples are a treasure-trove of DNA for clinical research. However, the quality of DNA can vary depending on the source or extraction method applied. Thus a standardized and cost-effective workflow for the qualification of DNA preparations is essential to guarantee interlaboratory reproducible results. The qualification process consists of the quantification of double strand DNA (dsDNA) and the assessment of its suitability for downstream applications, such as high-throughput next-generation sequencing. We tested the two most frequently used instrumentations to define their role in this process: NanoDrop, based on UV spectroscopy, and Qubit 2.0, which uses fluorochromes specifically binding dsDNA. Quantitative PCR (qPCR) was used as the reference technique as it simultaneously assesses DNA concentration and suitability for PCR amplification. We used 17 genomic DNAs from 6 fresh-frozen (FF) tissues, 6 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues, 3 cell lines, and 2 commercial preparations. Intra- and inter-operator variability was negligible, and intra-methodology variability was minimal, while consistent inter-methodology divergences were observed. In fact, NanoDrop measured DNA concentrations higher than Qubit and its consistency with dsDNA quantification by qPCR was limited to high molecular weight DNA from FF samples and cell lines, where total DNA and dsDNA quantity virtually coincide. In partially degraded DNA from FFPE samples, only Qubit proved highly reproducible and consistent with qPCR measurements. Multiplex PCR amplifying 191 regions of 46 cancer-related genes was designated the downstream application, using 40 ng dsDNA from FFPE samples calculated by Qubit. All but one sample produced amplicon libraries suitable for next-generation sequencing. NanoDrop UV-spectrum verified contamination of the unsuccessful sample. In conclusion, as qPCR has high costs and is labor intensive, an alternative effective standard workflow for qualification of DNA preparations should include the sequential combination of NanoDrop and Qubit to assess the purity and quantity of dsDNA, respectively.
    PLoS ONE 06/2013; 8(6):e62692. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0062692 · 3.23 Impact Factor
Show more