4.5 Article

Evaluation of silica resins for direct and efficient extraction of DNA from complex biological matrices in a miniaturized format

期刊

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 283, 期 2, 页码 175-191

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1006/abio.2000.4577

关键词

DNA purification; PCR suitable DNA template; solid-phase extraction; protein and DNA quantitation; micro-solid-phase extraction; silica

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [1 R21 CA78865-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAMS NIH HHS [AR-07591] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For DNA purification to be functionally integrated into the microchip for high-throughput DNA analysis, a miniaturized purification process must be developed that can be easily adapted to the microchip format. In this study, we evaluate the effectiveness of a variety of silica resins for miniaturized DNA purification and gauge the potential usefulness for on-chip solid-phase extraction. A micro-solid-phase extraction (mu SPE) device containing only nanograms of silica resin is shown to be effective for the adsorption and desorption of DNA in the program-nanogram mass range. Fluorescence spectroscopy as well as capillary electrophoresis with laser-induced fluorescence detection is employed for the analysis of DNA recovered from solid-phase resins, while the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is used to evaluate the amplifiable nature of the eluted DNA. We demonstrate that DNA can be directly recovered from white blood cells with an efficiency of roughly 70%, while greater than 80% of the protein is removed with a 500-nl bed volume mu SPE process that takes less than 10 min. With a capacity in the range of 10-30 ng/mg of silica resin, we show that the DNA extracted from white blood cells, cultured cancer cells, and even whole blood on the low microliter scale is suitable for direct PCR amplification. The miniaturized format as well as rapid time frame for DNA extraction is compatible with the fast electrophoresis on microfabricated chips. (C) 2000 Academic Press.

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

4.5
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