Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Efficiency of chemical versus mechanical disruption methods of DNA extraction for the identification of oral Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria.
Li, Xiaolan; Bosch-Tijhof, Caroline J; Wei, Xi; de Soet, Johannes J; Crielaard, Wim; Loveren, Cor van; Deng, Dong Mei.
Affiliation
  • Li X; Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, Guanghua School of Stomatology & Hospital of Stomatology, Guangdong Province Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
  • Bosch-Tijhof CJ; Department of Preventive Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Wei X; Department of Preventive Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • de Soet JJ; Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, Guanghua School of Stomatology & Hospital of Stomatology, Guangdong Province Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
  • Crielaard W; Department of Preventive Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Loveren CV; Department of Preventive Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Deng DM; Department of Preventive Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Int Med Res ; 48(5): 300060520925594, 2020 May.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32459112
OBJECTIVE: Clinical diagnostics often requires the detection of multiple bacterial species in limited clinical samples with a single DNA extraction method. This study aimed to compare the bacterial DNA extraction efficiency of two lysis methods automated with the MagNA-Pure LC instrument. The samples included five oral bacterial species (three Gram-positive and two Gram-negative) with or without human saliva background. METHODS: Genomic DNA (gDNA) was extracted from bacterial cultures by bead-beating lysis (BMP) or chemical lysis (MP), followed by automated purification and measurement by quantitative PCR. RESULTS: For pure bacterial cultures, the MP method yielded higher quantities of extracted DNA and a lower detection limit than the BMP method, except where the samples contained high numbers of Gram-positive bacteria. For bacterial cultures with a saliva background, no difference in gDNA extraction efficacy was observed between the two methods. CONCLUSIONS: The efficiency of a bacterial DNA extraction method is not only affected by the bacterial cell wall structure but also by the sample milieu. The MP method provided superior gDNA extraction efficiency when the samples contained a single bacterial species, whereas either of the BMP and MP methods could be applied with similar efficiencies to samples containing multiple species of bacteria.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: DNA, Bacterial / Bacterial Typing Techniques / Genome, Bacterial / Gram-Negative Bacteria / Gram-Positive Bacteria Type of study: Diagnostic_studies Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: J Int Med Res Year: 2020 Document type: Article Affiliation country: China Country of publication: United kingdom

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: DNA, Bacterial / Bacterial Typing Techniques / Genome, Bacterial / Gram-Negative Bacteria / Gram-Positive Bacteria Type of study: Diagnostic_studies Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: J Int Med Res Year: 2020 Document type: Article Affiliation country: China Country of publication: United kingdom