4.8 Article

Evaluation of DNA extraction methods for freshwater eukaryotic microalgae

Journal

WATER RESEARCH
Volume 46, Issue 16, Pages 5355-5364

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2012.07.023

Keywords

Waste stabilization ponds; Microalgae; Molecular techniques; DNA extraction; DGGE; Community analysis

Funding

  1. School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences at Newcastle University
  2. Royal Society [JP090804]
  3. RCUK Academic Fellowship [RES88007300]
  4. EPSRC [EP/I025782/1]
  5. EPSRC [EP/I025782/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/I025782/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The use of molecular methods to investigate microalgal communities of natural and engineered freshwater resources is in its infancy, with the majority of previous studies carried out by microscopy. Inefficient or differential DNA extraction of microalgal community members can lead to bias in downstream community analysis. Three commercially available DNA extraction kits have been tested on a range of pure culture freshwater algal species with diverse cell walls and mixed algal cultures taken from eutrophic waste stabilization ponds (WSP). DNA yield and quality were evaluated, along with DNA suitability for amplification of 18S rRNA gene fragments by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). QiagenDNeasy (R) Blood and Tissue kit (QBT), was found to give the highest DNA yields and quality. Denaturant Gradient Gel Electrophoresis (DGGE) was used to assess the diversity of communities from which DNA was extracted. No significant differences were found among kits when assessing diversity. QBT is recommended for use with WSP samples, a conclusion confirmed by further testing on communities from two tropical WSP systems. The fixation of microalgal samples with ethanol prior to DNA extraction was found to reduce yields as well as diversity and is not recommended. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available