Article

Convenient determination of DNA extraction efficiency using an external DNA recovery standard and quantitative-competitive PCR.

Department of Microbiology, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056, USA.
Journal of Microbiological Methods (Impact Factor: 2.1). 05/2004; 57(2):259-68. DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2004.01.013
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Molecular biology techniques have advanced the field of microbial ecology through the analysis of nucleic acids. Most techniques that use DNA or RNA require their extraction from environmental matrices, which can be tedious and inefficient. While a number of extraction methods, both laboratory-based and commercially available, have been developed, none of these include a convenient method to determine extraction efficiency. We have developed an external DNA recovery standard, Lambda DNA (target DNA) contained within pBR322, allowing routine determinations of DNA recovery efficiency. Target DNA was added to sediments as whole cells, total DNA extracted using commercial DNA extraction/purification kits and the amount of target DNA recovered quantified by quantitative-competitive PCR (QC-PCR). Three commercially available kits (UltraClean Soil DNA, FastDNA SPIN and Soil Master DNA Extraction) were evaluated for recovery efficiency. Recoveries for the three kits ranged from undetectable to 43.3% with average recoveries of 14.9+/-16.0%, 28.3+/-10.5% and 2.4+/-0.1% (UltraClean, FastDNA and Soil Master, respectively). Quantification of target DNA proved robust in sediments heavily polluted with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and the external recovery standard could be detected following extraction and amplification from as few as 1 x 10(3) cells added to 0.5 g sediment (wet weight). The external DNA recovery standard was also added directly to the sediment as purified plasmid DNA prior to extraction. It was recovered with similar efficiency as when added as whole cells, suggesting its usefulness in estimating DNA recovery in ribosomal DNA studies. These results show that, while the commercial kits offer expedited sample processing, the extraction efficiencies vary on a sample-by-sample basis and were <100%. Therefore, quantitative DNA studies require an estimation of DNA recovery.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
156 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: DNA from ancient sources is generally believed to be of low copy number, despite minimal attention towards direct measurement of DNA loss accumulated through the extraction process. We developed synthesized “standards” to measure the efficiency of some common DNA extraction methods for degraded skeletal samples, and used quantitative PCR to estimate a known quantity of DNA subjected to a given extraction method (i.e. “copies in”) versus quantity of DNA retained (i.e. “copies out”). All methods performed poorly in retaining short segments of DNA, giving low copy number results even when pre-extraction copy numbers far exceeded those expected of ancient samples. These findings challenge low copy number expectations, suggesting that ancient specimens may contain far more preserved genetic material than previously recognized. Furthermore, they emphasize the importance of optimizing and/or developing specialized extraction methods for retrieving degraded DNA.
    Journal of Archaeological Science 06/2014; · 2.14 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Environmental DNA (eDNA) is hypothesized to accumulate in surface water and sediment; however, the distribution of eDNA within a lentic environment and its relationship to fish spatial distribution is not well-known. We developed a quantitative PCR assay for the cytochrome b gene of the common carp (Cyprinus carpio), an ubiquitous invasive fish, and used it to measure eDNA in a small (65 ha) lake, in which both the density of carp and their spatial distribution were monitored for several years. Surface water, sub-surface water, and sediment were sampled from 22 locations in the lake, including areas frequently used by the carp. The detectability and concentration of eDNA in surface and sub-surface water were not significantly different (p > 0.05). In water, areas of high carp use had higher detectability and eDNA concentration, but there was no effect of fish use on sediment. Detectability followed the trend: high use water > low use water > sediment. Concentration of eDNA was highest in sediment on a per mass basis. These results suggest that eDNA sampling schemes should be informed by expected fish distribution patterns. This research is funded by Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund.
    American Fisheries Society 144th Annual Meeting; 08/2014
  • Journal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and Control 09/2014; 136(5):051018. · 1.04 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
214 Downloads
Available from
May 22, 2014