4.6 Article

Effect of DNA extraction procedure, repeated extraction and ethidium monoazide (EMA)/propidium monoazide (PMA) treatment on overall DNA yield and impact on microbial fingerprints for bacteria, fungi and archaea in a reference soil

期刊

APPLIED SOIL ECOLOGY
卷 93, 期 -, 页码 56-64

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.04.005

关键词

DNA-extraction; Repeated extraction; Ethidium monoazide (EMA); Propidium monoazide (PMA); Diversity

资金

  1. Austrian Science Fund [P 22815-B20]
  2. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P 22815] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Different DNA extraction protocolswere evaluated on a reference soil. A wide differencewas found in the total extractable DNA as derived from different extraction protocols. Concerning the DNA yield phenolchloroform-isomyl alcohol extraction resulted in high DNAyield but also in a remarkable co-extraction of contaminants making PCR from undiluted DNA extracts impossible. By comparison of two different extraction kits, the Macherey&Nagel SoilExtract II kit resulted in the highest DNA yields when buffer SL1 and the enhancer solution were applied. The enhancer solution not only significantly increased the DNA yield but also the amount of co-extracted contaminates, whereas additional disintegration strategies did not. Although a three times repeated DNA extraction increased the total amount of extracted DNA, microbial fingerprints were merely affected. However, with the 5th extraction this changed. A reduction of total DGGE band numbers was observed for archaea and fungi, whereas for bacteria the diversity increased. The application of ethidium monoazide (EMA) or propidium monoazide (PMA) treatment aiming on the selective removal of soil DNA derived from cells lacking cell wall integrity resulted in a significant reduction of total extracted DNA, however, the hypothesized effect on microbial fingerprints failed to appear indicating the need for further investigations. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.6
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