4.3 Article

Evaluation of DNA extraction and handling procedures for PCR-based copepod feeding studies

期刊

JOURNAL OF PLANKTON RESEARCH
卷 31, 期 12, 页码 1465-1474

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/plankt/fbp087

关键词

-

资金

  1. Norwegian Research Council (NRC) [152714/12030]
  2. U.S. National Science Foundation [OPP-00-83381, OCE-08-25999]
  3. US Department of Energy Biotechnology Investigations-Ocean Margins Program [FG02-98EF62531]
  4. Division Of Ocean Sciences
  5. Directorate For Geosciences [0825999] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Molecular methods are becoming increasingly common for taxonomic and ecological studies of marine and freshwater plankton. Recently, nucleic acids have been used as target molecules for identification and quantification of prey species in studies of trophic interactions. A critical step in the quantification of mesozooplankton feeding by molecular analysis is the isolation of microalgal DNA from predator guts and in the food environment. It is essential that total genomic DNA extraction provides maximum quantitative yield suitable for downstream analysis. In this study, we compared the efficacy and experimental variability of eight different protocols for total genomic DNA extraction from free-living microalgae and microalgae within the gut of copepods. We also developed and evaluated different sampling procedures for copepods prior to genomic extraction. The optimal protocol was evaluated using real time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and the integrity of the genomic DNA was determined by amplifying PCR targets of increasing size. Considerable variability was observed between purification protocols. Qiagen DNeasy (R) Blood & Tissue kit was the most efficient of the tested methods for genomic extraction from both free-living microalgae and microalgae inside copepod guts. Furthermore, the appropriate handling of predator copepods prior to genomic extraction was essential for quantitative gut content estimates.

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

4.3
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