4.5 Article

A simplified protocol for molecular identification of Eimeria species in field samples

Journal

VETERINARY PARASITOLOGY
Volume 146, Issue 1-2, Pages 35-45

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2006.12.015

Keywords

Avian coccidiosis; diagnosis; DNA extraction; Eimeria; field samples; oocysts; PCR

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to find a fast, sensitive and efficient protocol for molecular identification of chicken Eimeria spp. in field samples. Various methods for each of the three steps of the protocol were evaluated: oocyst wall rupturing methods, DNA extraction methods, and identification of species-specific DNA sequences by PCR. We then compared and evaluated five complete protocols. Three series of oocyst suspensions of known number of oocysts from Eimeria mitis, Eimeria praecox, Eimeria maxima and Eimeria tenella were prepared and ground using glass beads or mini-pestle. DNA was extracted from ruptured oocysts using commercial systems (GeneReleaser, Qiagen Stoolkit and Prepman) or phenol-chloroform DNA extraction, followed by identification of species-specific ITS-1 sequences by optimised single species PCR assays. The Stoolkit and Prepman protocols showed insufficient repeatability, and the former was also expensive and relatively time-consuming. In contrast, both the GeneReleaser protocol and phenol-chloroform protocols were robust and sensitive, detecting less than 0.4 oocysts of each species per PCR. Finally, we evaluated our new protocol on 68 coccidia positive field samples. Our data suggests that rupturing the oocysts by mini-pestle grinding, preparing the DNA with GeneReleaser, followed by optimised single species PCR assays, makes a robust and sensitive procedure for identifying chicken Eimeria species in field samples. Importantly, it also provides minimal hands-on-time in the pre-PCR process, lower contamination risk and no handling of toxic chemicals. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available