Comparison of methods for isolating fungal DNA

The main aim of this work was to compare the methods of DNA isolation in the moulds of genus Mucorales with special regard to the amount and purity of the DNA acquired. The acquired DNA was then amplified by specific real-time PCR. Five DNA extraction procedures were carried out in a Class 2 Biosafe...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Practical laboratory medicine Vol. 25; p. e00221
Main Authors: Galliano, Ilaria, Daprà, Valentina, Zaniol, Elena, Alliaudi, Carla, Graziano, Elisa, Montanari, Paola, Calvi, Cristina, Bergallo, Massimiliano
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Netherlands Elsevier B.V 01.05.2021
Elsevier
Subjects:
DNA isolation
Fungal DNA
Mucorales
PCR
Short Communication
Mucorales
Fungal DNA
PCR
DNA isolation
ISSN:2352-5517, 2352-5517
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The main aim of this work was to compare the methods of DNA isolation in the moulds of genus Mucorales with special regard to the amount and purity of the DNA acquired. The acquired DNA was then amplified by specific real-time PCR. Five DNA extraction procedures were carried out in a Class 2 Biosafety cabinet in a dedicated room with suitable biosafety precautions and appropriate biowaste disposal methods. A total of 6 Mucorales clinical strains were used. From the viewpoint of concentration and purity, methods A shown abundant amount of fungal DNA whereas methods E report a pure fungal DNA with R260/280 of 1.7 near the optimal 1.8. The DNA quantity reach statistically difference at ANOVA test with p value 0.0005 Overall, the E method was the most efficient method in the extraction of DNA from fungal cultures compared to the other methods considering time, cost, technical expertise, and instrumentation. Use of this assay will allow researchers to obtain DNA from fungi quickly for use in molecular assays
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
Both authors contributed equally to this manuscript.
ISSN:2352-5517
2352-5517
DOI:10.1016/j.plabm.2021.e00221