4.7 Article

Internal Control for Nucleic Acid Testing Based on the Use of Purified Bacillus atrophaeus subsp globigii Spores

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 47, 期 3, 页码 751-757

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01746-08

关键词

-

资金

  1. U. S. National Institutes of Health [1 U01 AI060594-01]
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [PA-15586]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Commonly used internal controls (ICs) to monitor the efficiency of nucleic acid testing (NAT) assays do not allow verification of nucleic acid extraction efficiency. Since microbial cells are often difficult to lyse, it is important to ensure that nucleic acids are efficiently extracted from any target organism. For this purpose, we developed a cellular IC based on the use of nonpathogenic Bacillus spores. Purified Bacillus atrophaeus subsp. globigii (referred to hereafter as simply B. atrophaeus) spores were added to vaginal and anal samples, which were then subjected to rapid DNA extraction and subsequent PCR amplification. The proof of concept of this cellular IC was made through the use of both manual and automated DNA extraction methods, using vaginal or anal samples spiked with B. atrophaeus spores, combined with a multiplex real-time PCR assay for the specific detection of group B streptococci (GBS) and B. atrophaeus. The performance of the cellular IC was compared to that of a standard IC plasmid added to PCRs. Approximately 500 B. atrophaeus spores per PCR was found to be optimal since this did not interfere significantly with GBS detection for either DNA extraction method and yielded reproducible amplification and/or detection of B. atrophaeus genomic DNA serving as an IC template. Performance of the cellular IC was comparable to that of the standard IC. This novel IC system using nonpathogenic and hard-to-lyse B. atrophaeus spores allowed validation of both the DNA extraction procedure and the amplification and detection process. Use of a spore-based control also provides a universal control for microbial cell lysis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据