4.6 Article

Comparison of DNA Extraction Methods for the Direct Quantification of Bacteria from Water Using Quantitative Real-Time PCR

期刊

WATER
卷 14, 期 22, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/W14223736

关键词

commercial water-testing kits; DNA extraction; E. coli; q-PCR

资金

  1. National Research Foundation [132727]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to develop a cost-effective method to concentrate bacterial cells directly from water for DNA extraction and PCR amplification. The in-house DNA extraction method showed good DNA recovery and repeatable results compared to the commercial kits.
Isolating DNA from bacterial cells concentrated directly from water samples allows the analysis of the DNA with a range of molecular biology techniques. The aim was to develop a cost-effective method to concentrate bacterial cells directly from water for DNA extraction and PCR amplification. A modified in-house guanidinium thiocyanate DNA extraction method was compared to four commercial kits (two repeats performed in triplicate) from 10-fold serially diluted bacterial cells and used to construct standard curves using quantitative real-time PCR (q-PCR). The in-house DNA extraction method-constructed qPCR standard curves showed similar results with determination coefficient (R-2) of 0.99 and 0.99 and of slopes -3.48 and -3.65). The R-2 and slope for Water Master (TM) DNA purification kit (R-2 0.34, 0.73; slope -5.73, -4.45); Ultra Clean (TM) Water DNA isolation kit (R-2 0.97, 0.28; slope -3.89, -8.84); Aquadien (TM) kit (R-2 0.98, 0.77; slope -3.59, -5.94) and Metagenomic DNA isolation kit (R-2 0.65, 0.77; slope -3.83, -4.89) showed higher variability than the in-house DNA extraction method. The results showed that the in-house DNA extraction method is a viable cost-effective alternative with good DNA recovery and repeatable and reproducible results. A limitation of the study is the limited number of repeats, due to cost implication of the commercial kits.

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