4.7 Article

A simple method for DNA isolation from clotted blood extricated rapidly from serum separator tubes

期刊

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 53, 期 3, 页码 522-524

出版社

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2006.078212

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [C06 CA62528-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCRR NIH HHS [C06 RR10600-01, C06 RR14514-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: After clinical laboratory tests have been performed, it can be difficult to obtain DNA without further patient involvement. Although the blood clot remaining within the serum-separation tube after serum collection is a source of DNA, recovery of the clot from the tube is a significant challenge. Method: We devised a method to efficiently remove clotted blood from the serum-separation gel and extract DNA from clotted whole blood samples, obtaining maximum yield of the DNA without DNA contamination by the separation gel. The method involved centrifugation of the sample in the inverted original 10-mL collection tube to displace the separation gel for easy isolation of the blood clot and shearing of the blood clot by centrifugation through a 20-gauge wire mesh cone at 2000g in a swinging-bucket rotor. After erythrocyte lysis and proteinase-K digestion of the fragmented clot, DNA was precipitated with isopropanol in the presence of glycogen. Results: The mean amount of DNA obtained from a 4-mL clotted blood sample prepared by this method was 37.1 mu g for clots processed soon after collection, with a reduction to 0.439 mu g for c lots stored for I month before extraction. The quality of the DNA was comparable to that extracted directly from whole blood, and it was found to be suitable for PCR-mediated analysis. Conclusion: We have formulated a method that overcomes the difficulties of safely extricating a blood clot from serum-separation tubes, allowing rapid DNA exfraction for the purposes of genetic investigation. (c) 2007 American Association for Clinical Chemistry.

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