Evaluation of commercial DNA extraction methods for biosecurity applications

Sorelle Bowman, Paul Roffey, Dennis McNevin, Michelle E. Gahan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

An essential starting point when using molecular methods to identify bacterial biosecurity agents is an efficient extraction procedure that can extract DNA from Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, lyse bacteria and remove inhibitors. ChargeSwitch gDNA mini bacteria kit (Invitrogen), QIAamp DNA extraction kit (Qiagen) with and without bead-beating, and Isolate II Genomic DNA kit (Bioline) were assessed for DNA extraction from Gram-positive (Bacillus thuringiensis) and Gram-negative (Escherichia coli) culture and environmental wipe samples. DNA was quantified using fluorometry, spectrophotometry and real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and correlation between methods examined. In general, ChargeSwitch resulted in the highest DNA yield, however it was more expensive, did not remove environmental inhibitors or lyse all bacteria. Silica-based methods were efficient at lysing bacteria, removing inhibitors and generating sufficient DNA for downstream applications. Bead-beating added additional time and costs but did not significantly increase yields. There was limited correlation between DNA quantifications determined using fluorometry, spectrophotometry and real-time PCR. Results show a range of methods should be considered when developing extraction protocols for biosecurity applications with the optimal method dependant on sample type and starting material amount. Isolate II is recommended for extraction from culture or wipe samples, particularly with small quantities commonly encountered in biosecurity scenarios
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)407-420
Number of pages14
JournalAustralian Journal of Forensic Sciences
Volume48
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Fingerprint

DNA
Bacteria
Fluorometry
Spectrophotometry
Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction
Bacillus thuringiensis
Gram-Negative Bacteria
Silicon Dioxide
Escherichia coli
Costs and Cost Analysis

Cite this

Bowman, Sorelle ; Roffey, Paul ; McNevin, Dennis ; Gahan, Michelle E. / Evaluation of commercial DNA extraction methods for biosecurity applications. In: Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2016 ; Vol. 48, No. 4. pp. 407-420.
@article{0f9d94809c404311b1e0d2c5921ec939,
title = "Evaluation of commercial DNA extraction methods for biosecurity applications",
abstract = "An essential starting point when using molecular methods to identify bacterial biosecurity agents is an efficient extraction procedure that can extract DNA from Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, lyse bacteria and remove inhibitors. ChargeSwitch gDNA mini bacteria kit (Invitrogen), QIAamp DNA extraction kit (Qiagen) with and without bead-beating, and Isolate II Genomic DNA kit (Bioline) were assessed for DNA extraction from Gram-positive (Bacillus thuringiensis) and Gram-negative (Escherichia coli) culture and environmental wipe samples. DNA was quantified using fluorometry, spectrophotometry and real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and correlation between methods examined. In general, ChargeSwitch resulted in the highest DNA yield, however it was more expensive, did not remove environmental inhibitors or lyse all bacteria. Silica-based methods were efficient at lysing bacteria, removing inhibitors and generating sufficient DNA for downstream applications. Bead-beating added additional time and costs but did not significantly increase yields. There was limited correlation between DNA quantifications determined using fluorometry, spectrophotometry and real-time PCR. Results show a range of methods should be considered when developing extraction protocols for biosecurity applications with the optimal method dependant on sample type and starting material amount. Isolate II is recommended for extraction from culture or wipe samples, particularly with small quantities commonly encountered in biosecurity scenarios",
keywords = "Bacillus, biosecurity, DNA extraction, E. coli",
author = "Sorelle Bowman and Paul Roffey and Dennis McNevin and Gahan, {Michelle E.}",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1080/00450618.2015.1106585",
language = "English",
volume = "48",
pages = "407--420",
journal = "Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences",
issn = "0045-0618",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "4",

}

Evaluation of commercial DNA extraction methods for biosecurity applications. / Bowman, Sorelle; Roffey, Paul; McNevin, Dennis; Gahan, Michelle E.

In: Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 48, No. 4, 2016, p. 407-420.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of commercial DNA extraction methods for biosecurity applications

AU - Bowman, Sorelle

AU - Roffey, Paul

AU - McNevin, Dennis

AU - Gahan, Michelle E.

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - An essential starting point when using molecular methods to identify bacterial biosecurity agents is an efficient extraction procedure that can extract DNA from Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, lyse bacteria and remove inhibitors. ChargeSwitch gDNA mini bacteria kit (Invitrogen), QIAamp DNA extraction kit (Qiagen) with and without bead-beating, and Isolate II Genomic DNA kit (Bioline) were assessed for DNA extraction from Gram-positive (Bacillus thuringiensis) and Gram-negative (Escherichia coli) culture and environmental wipe samples. DNA was quantified using fluorometry, spectrophotometry and real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and correlation between methods examined. In general, ChargeSwitch resulted in the highest DNA yield, however it was more expensive, did not remove environmental inhibitors or lyse all bacteria. Silica-based methods were efficient at lysing bacteria, removing inhibitors and generating sufficient DNA for downstream applications. Bead-beating added additional time and costs but did not significantly increase yields. There was limited correlation between DNA quantifications determined using fluorometry, spectrophotometry and real-time PCR. Results show a range of methods should be considered when developing extraction protocols for biosecurity applications with the optimal method dependant on sample type and starting material amount. Isolate II is recommended for extraction from culture or wipe samples, particularly with small quantities commonly encountered in biosecurity scenarios

AB - An essential starting point when using molecular methods to identify bacterial biosecurity agents is an efficient extraction procedure that can extract DNA from Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, lyse bacteria and remove inhibitors. ChargeSwitch gDNA mini bacteria kit (Invitrogen), QIAamp DNA extraction kit (Qiagen) with and without bead-beating, and Isolate II Genomic DNA kit (Bioline) were assessed for DNA extraction from Gram-positive (Bacillus thuringiensis) and Gram-negative (Escherichia coli) culture and environmental wipe samples. DNA was quantified using fluorometry, spectrophotometry and real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and correlation between methods examined. In general, ChargeSwitch resulted in the highest DNA yield, however it was more expensive, did not remove environmental inhibitors or lyse all bacteria. Silica-based methods were efficient at lysing bacteria, removing inhibitors and generating sufficient DNA for downstream applications. Bead-beating added additional time and costs but did not significantly increase yields. There was limited correlation between DNA quantifications determined using fluorometry, spectrophotometry and real-time PCR. Results show a range of methods should be considered when developing extraction protocols for biosecurity applications with the optimal method dependant on sample type and starting material amount. Isolate II is recommended for extraction from culture or wipe samples, particularly with small quantities commonly encountered in biosecurity scenarios

KW - Bacillus

KW - biosecurity

KW - DNA extraction

KW - E. coli

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84947704039&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/00450618.2015.1106585

DO - 10.1080/00450618.2015.1106585

M3 - Article

VL - 48

SP - 407

EP - 420

JO - Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences

JF - Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences

SN - 0045-0618

IS - 4

ER -