Dataset Information

Comparison of Swabbing Solution Volume and gDNA Extraction Kits on DNA Recovery from Rigid Surface.

ABSTRACT: For bacteria sampling studies, various collection methods have been used to identify bacteria. To obtain accurate information about bacteria, high quality samples should be obtained. In order to obtain a high quality sample, a stable and large number of DNA copies must be collected. This study compared the efficiency of different methods of bacterial gDNA extraction and bacteria collection according to swabbing solution volumes and types. The efficiency of bacterial genomic DNA extraction was compared using a AccuPrep^® Genomic DNA Extraction kit, a QIAamp^® DNA Mini kit, and a MOBIO^® DNeasy PowerSoil kit. The DNA Mini kit was shown to extract the highest amount of gDNA, and sub-experiments were conducted using this kit. Phosphate-buffered saline and phosphate-buffered saline with 0.1% Tween 20 were used as collection solutions of various volumes (0, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, and 120 μL) using cotton swabs. Bacteria collection efficiency was highest when 70 μL PBS was used. The target strains collected in this experiment were Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli, and these were quantified using the number of colony-forming units, DNA concentrations, and the number of DNA copies. These results can be used to efficiently bacterial collection for experiments in various fields.

SUBMITTER: Ok YJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7105554 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Describing and evaluating miRNA inventories with Next Generation Sequencing is a goal of scientists from a wide range of fields. It requires high purity, high quality, and high yield RNA extractions that do not only contain abundant ribosomal RNAs but are also enriched in miRNAs. Here we compare 6 disparate and commercially available totalRNA extraction kits for their suitability for miRNA-preparations from Gyrodactylus salaris, an important but small (500 ?m in length) monogenean pathogen of Norwegian Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). FINDINGS: We evaluated 1 salt precipitation method (MasterPure™ Complete RNA Purification Kit, Epicentre), 2 Phenol based extraction methods (mirVana Kit, Ambion, and Trizol Plus Kit, Invitrogen), 1 paramagnetic bead extraction method (RNA Tissue kit, GeneMole) and 2 purification methods based on spin column chromatography using a proprietary resin as separation matrix (Phenol-free Total RNA Purification Kit, Amresco, and ZR MicroPrep Kit, Zymo Research). The quality of the extractions from 1, 10 and 100 individuals, respectively, was assessed in terms of totalRNA yield, RNA integrity, and smallRNA and miRNA yield. The 6 RNA extraction methods yielded considerably different total RNA extracts, with striking differences in low molecular weight RNA yield. The Phenol-free Total RNA Purification Kit (Amresco) showed the highest totalRNA yield, but the best miRNA/totalRNA ratio was obtained with the ZR MicroPrep Kit (Zymo Research). It was not possible to extract electrophoretically detectable miRNAs from Gyrodactylus salaris with the RNA Tissue Kit (GeneMole) or the Trizol Plus Kit (Invitrogen). CONCLUSIONS: We present an optimized extraction protocol for single and small numbers of Gyrodactylus salaris from infected Atlantic salmon that delivers a totalRNA yield suitable for downstream next generation sequencing analyses of miRNA. Two of the six tested totalRNA kits/methods were not suitable for the extraction of miRNAs from Gyrodactylus salaris.

Project description:BackgroundWhole blood expression profiling is frequently performed using PAXgene (Qiagen) or Tempus (Life Technologies) tubes. Here, we compare 6 novel generation RNA isolation protocols with respect to RNA quantity, quality and recovery of mRNA and miRNA.Methods3 PAXgene and 3 Tempus Tubes were collected from participants of the LIFE study with (n?=?12) and without (n?=?35) acute myocardial infarction (AMI). RNA was extracted with 4 manual protocols from Qiagen (PAXgene Blood miRNA Kit), Life Technologies (MagMAX for Stabilized Blood Tubes RNA Isolation Kit), and Norgen Biotek (Norgen Preserved Blood RNA Purification Kit I and Kit II), and 2 (semi-)automated protocols on the QIAsymphony (Qiagen) and MagMAX Express-96 Magnetic Particle Processor (Life Technologies). RNA quantity and quality was determined. For biological validation, RNA from 12 representative probands, extracted with all 6 kits (n?=?72), was reverse transcribed and mRNAs (matrix metalloproteinase 9, arginase 1) and miRNAs (miR133a, miR1), shown to be altered by AMI, were analyzed.ResultsRNA yields were highest using the Norgen Kit I with Tempus Tubes and lowest using the Norgen Kit II with PAXgene. The disease status was the second major determinant of RNA yields (LIFE-AMI 11.2 vs. LIFE 6.7 µg, p<0.001) followed by the choice of blood collection tube. (Semi-)automation reduced overall RNA extraction time but did not generally reduce hands-on-time. RNA yields and quality were comparable between manual and automated extraction protocols. mRNA expression was not affected by collection tubes and RNA extraction kits but by RT/qPCR reagents with exception of the Norgen Kit II, which led to mRNA depletion. For miRNAs, expression differences related to collection tubes (miR30b), RNA isolation (Norgen Kit II), and RT/qRT reagents (miR133a) were observed.ConclusionWe demonstrate that novel generation RNA isolation kits significantly differed with respect to RNA recovery and affected miRNA but not mRNA expression profiles.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Swabbing Solution Volume and gDNA Extraction Kits on DNA Recovery from Rigid Surface.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets