Email this article SURVEY QUICK DNA EXTRACTION PROTOCOLS - PROPOSITION OF A DNA EXTRACTION PROCESSES THAT IS OPTIMAL FOR DNA PATERNITY TESTING
About this article
Received: 23/07/20 Revised: 14/09/20 Published: 21/10/20Authors
1. Huynh Viet Loc, LOCI Institute of Molecular Biology2. Tang Ngoc Kieu Vy
, LOCI Institute of Molecular Biology3. Duong Ho Diem Tram, LOCI Institute of Molecular Biology
4. Chu Nguyen Thanh Thuy, LOCI Institute of Molecular Biology
Abstract
After experiment, the process used NaOH - SDS combinate with thermal shock was found to be the DNA extraction method more efficient than the other. Comparing extraction efficiency at different SDS concentrations to propose the optimal extraction procedure, the result showed that 0.01% is the suitable SDS concentration. To evaluate the effectiveness of the improved extracting procedure, we compared it with a commercially available kit (E.Z.N.A Forensic DNA kit) on 10 samples and applicated to extract DNA on 200 samples. After extracted, all samples have been used for STR-PCR reaction. On 10 samples, average fluorescence signal from the improved extraction procedure is lower than the commercial kit, but the results were accurate and consistent. On 200 samples, the results showed that no samples were inhibited, more than 90% of samples for PCR product had fluorescence intensity above 100 RFU and 100% for signal above 50 RFU. On the samples have been known the parentage relationship, the result is match.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDF (Tiếng Việt)References
[1]. O. Nick, "The Basics: How Phenol Extraction Works," 2015. [Online]. Available: http://bitesizebio.com/384/the-basics-how-phenol-extraction-works. [Accessed Aug. 25, 2015].
[2]. S. Berensmeier, “Magnetic particles for the separation and purification of nucleic acids,” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, vol. 73, no.3, pp. 495-504, 2006.
[3]. M. Miura et al., “Comparison of six commercially-available DNA polymerases for direct PCR,” Rev. Inst. Med. Trop. Sao Paulo, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 401-406, 2013.
[4]. B. K. Milko, “Mutants of Taq DNA polymerase resistant to PCR inhibitors allow DNA amplification from whole blood and crude soil samples,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 40-58, 2009.
[5]. M. S. Adamowicz1 et al., “Evaluation of Methods to Improve the Extraction and Recovery of DNA from Cotton Swabs for Forensic Analysis,” Plos one, vol. 9, p. 2, 2014.
[6]. L. Moore, “Evaluation of buccal cell collection protocols for genetic susceptibility studies,” Biomarkers, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 448- 454, 2001.
[7]. PowerPlex® Fusion System Technical Manual, Promega Corporation, TMD039, 2017.
[8]. Daniel, “A Simple "Universal" DNA Extraction Procedure Using SDS and Proteinase K Is Compatible with Direct PCR Amplification,” Genome Research, vol. 4, pp. 368-370, 1995.
[9]. B. Richards. “Multiplex PCR amplification from the CFTR gene using DNA prepared from buccal brushes/swab,” Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 159-163, 1992.
[10]. M. Klintschar, and F. Neuhuber, “Evaluation of an alkaline lysis method for the extraction of DNA from whole blood and forensic stains for STR analysis,” J Forensic Sci, vol. 45, pp. 669-673, 2000.
[11]. A. H. Walker et al., “Collection of Genomic DNA by Buccal Swabs for Polymerase Chain Reaction-Based Biomarker Assays,” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 107, pp. 517-520, 1999.
[12]. K. Sung et al., “A simple and effcient Triton X-100 boiling and chloroform extraction method of RNA isolation from Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria,” FEMS Microbiology Letters, vol. 229, pp. 97-101, 2003.
[13]. J. M. Walker, The Protein Protocols Handbook. (Third Edition). New York (NY): Springer-Verlag New York, LLC, 2009.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.