Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2011;6(7):e22668.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022668. Epub 2011 Jul 26.

Comparison of eight methods for the extraction of Bacillus atrophaeus spore DNA from eleven common interferents and a common swab

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of eight methods for the extraction of Bacillus atrophaeus spore DNA from eleven common interferents and a common swab

Helen L Rose et al. PLoS One. 2011.

Abstract

Eight DNA extraction products or methods (Applied Biosystems PrepFiler Forensic DNA Extraction Kit; Bio-Rad Instagene Only, Bio-Rad Instagene & Spin Column Purification; EpiCentre MasterPure DNA & RNA Kit; FujiFilm QuickGene Mini80; Idaho Technologies 1-2-3 Q-Flow Kit; MoBio UltraClean Microbial DNA Isolation Kit; Sigma Extract-N-Amp Plant and Seed Kit) were adapted to facilitate extraction of DNA under BSL3 containment conditions. DNA was extracted from 12 common interferents or sample types, spiked with spores of Bacillus atropheaus. Resulting extracts were tested by real-time PCR. No one method was the best, in terms of DNA extraction, across all sample types. Statistical analysis indicated that the PrepFiler method was the best method from six dry powders (baking, biological washing, milk, plain flour, filler and talcum) and one solid (Underarm deodorant), the UltraClean method was the best from four liquids (aftershave, cola, nutrient broth, vinegar), and the MasterPure method was the best from the swab sample type. The best overall method, in terms of DNA extraction, across all sample types evaluated was the UltraClean method.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

    1. Mitchell JL, Chatwell N, Christensen D, Diaper H, Minogue TD, et al. Development of real-time PCR Assays for the specific detection of Francisella tularensis ssp. tularensis, holarctica and mediaasiatica. Mol Cell Probes. 2010;24:72–76. - PubMed
    1. Whitehouse CA, Hottel HE. Comparison of five commercial DNA extraction kits for the recovery of Francisella tularensis DNA from spiked soil samples. Mol Cell Probes. 2007;21:92–96. - PubMed
    1. Dauphin LA, Stephens KW, Eufinger SC, Bowen MD. Comparison of five commercial DNA extraction kits for the recovery of Yersinia pestis DNA from bacterial suspensions and spiked environmental samples. J Appl Microbiol. 2010;108:163–172. - PubMed
    1. Blackwood KS, Burdz TV, Turenne CY, Sharma MK, Kabani AM, et al. Viability testing of material derived from Mycobacterium tuberculosis prior to removal from a Containment Level-III laboratory as part of a Laboratory risk assessment program. BMC Infect Dis. 2005;5 doi: 10.1186/1471-2334/5/4. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hsu VP, Lukacs SL, Handzel T, Hayslett J, Harper S et al. Opening a Bacillus anthracis – containing envelope, Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C.: The Public Heath Response. Emerging Infect Dis. 2002;8:1039–1043. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms