4.7 Article

HPCE quantification of 5-methyl-2′-deoxycytidine in genomic DNA:: Methodological optimization for chestnut and other woody species

期刊

PLANT PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 46, 期 8-9, 页码 815-822

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2008.04.009

关键词

epigenetic; genomic DNA methylation; HPCE; residual RNA; Castanea sativa

资金

  1. European Union [FAIR3-CT96-1445, INCO 10063]
  2. Spanish National Projects [MCT-AGL2000-2126, AGL 2004-00810]
  3. CONICYT-BID

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantification of deoxynucleosides using micellar high-performance capillary electrophoresis (HPCE) is an efficient, fast and inexpensive evaluation method of genomic DNA methylation. This approach has been demonstrated to be more sensitive and specific than other methods for the quantification of DNA methylation content. However, effective detection and quantification of 5-methyl-2'-deoxycytidine depend of the sample characteristics. Previous works have revealed that in most woody species, the quality and quantity of RNA-free DNA extracted that is suitable for analysis by means of HPCE varies among species of the same gender, among tissues taken from the same tree, and vary in the same tissue depending on the different seasons of the year. The aim of this work is to establish a quantification method of genomic DNA methylation that lends itself to use in different Castanea sativa Mill. materials, and in other angiosperm and gymnosperm woody species. Using a DNA extraction kit based in silica membrane has increased the resolutive capacity of the method. Under these conditions, it can be analyzed different organs or tissues of angiosperms and gymnosperms, regardless of their state of development. We emphasized the importance of samples free of nucleosides, although, in the contrary case, the method ensures the effective separation of deoxynucleosides and identification of 5-methyl-2'-deoxycytidine. (C) 2008 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

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