4.6 Article

A novel, magnetic bead-based extraction method for the isolation of antimicrobial resistance genes with a case study in river water in Malawi

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 133, 期 5, 页码 3191-3200

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/jam.15755

关键词

AMR; ARG; environmental surveillance; qPCR; river water

资金

  1. Medical Research Council
  2. Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aims to develop a low-cost method for isolating ARGs from river water. The MagnaExtract method was found to be comparable, and in some cases superior to commercially available kits for this purpose. This simple and high-yield extraction method could be beneficial for surveillance campaigns in East Africa.
Aims The environment is increasingly recognized as an important reservoir of antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs), which can be identified using molecular platforms. Yet, environmental surveillance remains an underutilised tool as there is no agreement on the best strategy for sample processing. We aim to develop a low-cost extraction method independent to commercial kits or reagents. Methods and Results We present a novel, magnetic bead-based method for the isolation of ARGs from river water named MagnaExtract. We present this with analytic limit of detection as well as a case study in Southern Malawi. Here we compare the DNA yield from MagnaExtract with commercially available QIAGEN kits and the crude boil and spin method, using a high-resolution melt analysis PCR panel designed for the detection of third-generation cephalosporin and carbapenem-resistant genes from 98 water samples. Conclusion The MagnaExtract method is comparable, and in some instance's superior to commercially available kits for the isolation of ARGs from river water samples. Significance and Impact of the Study The MagnaExtract approach offers a simple, affordable, high yielding extraction method that could be used for the detection of ARGs from river water samples in surveillance campaigns in East Africa.

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