Dataset Information

DNA extract characterization process for microbial detection methods development and validation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assays used in pathogen detection require rigorous methods development including characterizing DNA extraction products. A DNA extract characterization process is demonstrated using DNA extracted from five different cells types (two Gram-negatives: Escherichia coli, and Burkholderia thailandensis, spores and vegetative cells from the Gram-positive Bacillus cereus, and yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae) with six different methods.

Results

DNA extract quantity (concentration and extraction efficiency) and quality (purity and intactness) varied by cell type and extraction method enabling the demonstration of different DNA characterization methods. DNA purity was measured using UV spectroscopy, where the A260/A280 and A260/A230 ratios are indicators of different contaminants. Reproducibility of UV spectroscopy measurements decreased for DNA concentrations less than 17.5 ng/?L. Forty-seven extracts had concentrations greater than 17.5 ng/?L, 25 had A260/A280 above 2.0, and 28 had A260/A230 ratios below 1.8 indicating RNA and polysaccharide contamination respectively. Based on a qPCR inhibition assay the contaminants did not inhibit PCR. Extract intactness was evaluated using microfluidic gel electrophoresis. Thirty-five samples had concentrations above the limit of quantification (LOQ, roughly 11 ng/ ?L), 93.5% of the DNA was larger than 1kb and 1% was smaller than 300 bp. Extract concentrations ranged from 1502.2 ng/?L to below the LOQ when UV spectroscopy, fluorometry, and qPCR were used. LOQ for UV spectroscopic and fluorometric measurements were 3.5 ng/?L and 0.25 ng/?L respectively. The qPCR LOQ varied by cell type (5.72?×?10-3 ng/?L for E. coli, 2.66?×?10-3 ng/?L, for B. cereus, 3.78?×?10-3 ng/?L for B. thailandensis, and 7.67?×?10-4 ng/?L for S. cerevisiae). A number of samples were below the UV spectroscopy (n?=?27), flurometry (n?=?15), and qPCR (n?=?3) LOQ.

Conclusion

The presented DNA extract characterization process provides measures of DNA quantity and quality applicable to microbial detection methods development and validation studies. Evaluating DNA quality and quantity results in a better understanding of process LOD and contributing factors to suboptimal assay performance. The samples used demonstrated the use of different DNA characterization methods presented but did not encompass the full range of DNA extract characteristics.

SUBMITTER: Olson ND

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3599793 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Bog turtles (Glyptemys muhlenbergii) are listed as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) for wildlife action plans in every state it occurs and multi-state efforts are underway to better characterize extant populations and prioritize restoration efforts. However, traditional sampling methods can be ineffective due to the turtle's wetland habitat, small size, and burrowing nature. Molecular methods, such as qPCR, provide the ability to overcome this challenge by effectively quantifying minute amounts of turtle DNA left behind in its environment (eDNA). Developing such methods for bog turtles has proved difficult partly because of the high sequence similarity between bog turtles and closely-related, cohabitating species, most often wood turtles (Glyptemys insculpta). Additionally, substrates containing bog turtle eDNA are often rich in organics or other substances that frequently inhibit both DNA extraction and qPCR amplification. Here, we describe the development and validation of a qPCR assay, BT3, targeting the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I gene that correctly identifies bog turtles with 100% specificity and sensitivity when tested on 201 blood samples collected from six species over a wide geographic range. We also developed a full-process internal control employing a genetically modified strain of Caenorhabditis elegans to improve DNA extraction methods, limit false negative results due to qPCR inhibition, and measure total DNA recovery from each sample. Using the internal control, we found that DNA recovery varied by over an order of magnitude between samples and likely explains the lack of bog turtle detection in some cases. Methods presented herein are highly-specific and may offer a more cost effective, non-invasive tool to supplement bog turtle population assessments in the Eastern United States. Poor or differential DNA recovery, which remains unmeasured in the vast majority of eDNA studies, significantly reduced the ability to detect bog turtle in their natural environment.