4.5 Article

Rapid, simple and potentially universal method for DNA extraction from Opuntia spp. fresh cladode tissues suitable for PCR amplification

Journal

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY REPORTS
Volume 45, Issue 5, Pages 1405-1412

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11033-018-4303-8

Keywords

Cactus pear; CTAB; DNA extraction; Polysaccharides; Viscosity

Funding

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (Portugal) [UID/AGR/00239/2013]
  2. MMR [UID/AMB/00681/2013]
  3. CMGR [UID/AMB/00681/2013]
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [UID/AGR/00239/2013, UID/AMB/00681/2013] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In Opuntia spp., the cladode tissues contain many polysaccharides and secondary metabolites that interfere with obtaining high-quality deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), using currently available methods. To circumvent this problem, three commercial kits, three modified versions of the conventional cetyltrimethylammonium bromide method (CTAB) method and one combined method were tested in Opuntia ficus-indica, O. robusta, O. dillenii and O. elata species. We obtained a rapid and simple protocol that allows the extraction of DNA from all the tested species with good DNA yield and purity, namely, the combined method. With this method (DNeasyA (R) Plant Mini Kit combined with the CTAB method), DNA yields from 13.2 +/- 7.8 to 15.9 +/- 11.3 A mu g g(-1) of fresh tissue were obtained in the four Opuntia species. The purity, evaluated by the ratio A(260)/A(280) ratio, ranged from 1.67 +/- 0.12 to 2.01 +/- 0.25, revealing low levels of problematic metabolites. The extracted DNA quality was confirmed by amplifying a set of nuclear microsatellites obtained for the genus. Reliable reproducible bands and electropherogram profiles were obtained. The combined method has potential to be universal for good-quality DNA extraction in cacti, particularly in the Opuntia genus and other difficult-to-extract species.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available