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: 2.55). 06/2011; 94(6):3159-65. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2010-3987
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mutation detection accuracy has been described extensively; however, it is surprising that pre-PCR processing of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples has not been systematically assessed in clinical context. We designed a RING trial to (i) investigate pre-PCR variability, (ii) correlate pre-PCR variation with EGFR/BRAF mutation testing accuracy and (iii) investigate causes for observed variation. 13 molecular pathology laboratories were recruited. 104 blinded FFPE curls including engineered FFPE curls, cell-negative FFPE curls and control FFPE tissue samples were distributed to participants for pre-PCR processing and mutation detection. Follow-up analysis was performed to assess sample purity, DNA integrity and DNA quantitation. Rate of mutation detection failure was 11.9%. Of these failures, 80% were attributed to pre-PCR error. Significant differences in DNA yields across all samples were seen using analysis of variance (p<0.0001), and yield variation from engineered samples was not significant (p=0.3782). Two laboratories failed DNA extraction from samples that may be attributed to operator error. DNA extraction protocols themselves were not found to contribute significant variation. 10/13 labs reported yields averaging 235.8 ng (95% CI 90.7 to 380.9) from cell-negative samples, which was attributed to issues with spectrophotometry. DNA measurements using Qubit Fluorometry demonstrated a median fivefold overestimation of DNA quantity by Nanodrop Spectrophotometry. DNA integrity and PCR inhibition were factors not found to contribute significant variation. In this study, we provide evidence demonstrating that variation in pre-PCR steps is prevalent and may detrimentally affect the patient's ability to receive critical therapy. We provide recommendations for preanalytical workflow optimisation that may reduce errors in down-stream sequencing and for next-generation sequencing library generation. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to
    Journal of Clinical Pathology 11/2014; DOI:10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202644 · 2.55 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Automated extraction of DNA for testing of laboratory samples is an attractive alternative to labour-intensive manual methods when higher throughput is required. However, it is important to maintain the maximum detection sensitivity possible to reduce the occurrence of type II errors (false negatives; failure to detect the target when it is present), especially in the biomedical field, where PCR is used for diagnosis. We used blood infected with known concentrations of Trypanosoma copemani to test the impact of analysis techniques on trypanosome detection sensitivity by PCR. We compared combinations of a manual and an automated DNA extraction method and two different PCR primer sets to investigate the impact of each on detection levels. Both extraction techniques and specificity of primer sets had a significant impact on detection sensitivity. Samples extracted using the same DNA extraction technique performed substantially differently for each of the separate primer sets. Type I errors (false positives; detection of the target when it is not present), produced by contaminants, were avoided with both extraction methods. This study highlights the importance of testing laboratory techniques with known samples to optimise accuracy of test results.
    Experimental Parasitology 08/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.exppara.2014.08.006 · 1.86 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The quality and yield of single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) plays a key role in ssDNA aptamer selection. However, current methods for generating and purifying ssDNA either provides low yield due to ssDNA loss during the gel purification process or low specificity due to tertiary structural damage of ssDNA by alkaline or exonuclease treatment in removing dsDNA and by-products. This study developed an indirect purification method that provides a high yield and quality ssDNA sub-library. Symmetric PCR was applied to generate a sufficient template, while asymmetric PCR using an excessive non-biotinylated forward primer and an insufficient biotinylated reverse primer combined with a biotin-strepavidin system was applied to eliminate dsDNA; hence, leading to ssDNA purification. However, no alkaline or exonuclease was involved in treating dsDNA, so as to warrant the tertiary structure of ssDNA for potential aptamer SELEX selection. Agarose gel image indicated that no dsDNA or by-product contamination was detected in the ssDNA sub-library generated by the indirect purification method. Purified ssDNA concentration reached 1,020 ± 210 nM, which was much greater than previous methods. In conclusion, this novel method provided a simple and fast tool to generate and purify a high yield and quality ssDNA sub-library. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    Analytical Biochemistry 03/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.ab.2015.02.027 · 2.31 Impact Factor


Available from
May 16, 2014