DNA extraction of bacterial cells using a semi-automated filtration system

The COVID-19 pandemic lockdown created problems with importing of commercial kits resulting in extended turnaround times for consumable deliveries. One way to circumvent this was to use an inexpensive optimized in-house method for DNA extraction from water.• The DNA extraction methods were optimized...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: K.B. Hoorzook, T.G. Barnard
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2022-01-01
Series:MethodsX
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215016122001650
Description
Summary:The COVID-19 pandemic lockdown created problems with importing of commercial kits resulting in extended turnaround times for consumable deliveries. One way to circumvent this was to use an inexpensive optimized in-house method for DNA extraction from water.• The DNA extraction methods were optimized on a 96-well plate using a semi-automated filtration system to increase the number of samples from 24 to 96 at a time in 2 h. The DNA extraction method optimizations included: (a) Guanidium thiocyanate method plus dilution series of celite to determine DNA binding capacity; (b) QIamp 96 Qiacube HT kit (Qiagen®); (c) Guanidium thiocyanate with the celite replaced with a binding buffer.• The in-house DNA extraction methods and adapted in-house DNA extraction method were compared to QIamp 96 Qiacube HT kit (Qiagen®), which is used on a 96-well semi-automated filtration system. The results showed maximum capacity of the 96-well filter plates was 400 μℓ broth (OD600 = 0.45 = 3.6 × 108 cells/mℓ) before the 96-well filters blocked.• When the methods were compared, there was no significant difference between the in-house DNA extraction method with 1:420 celite dilution (P-value = 0.126) and the adapted in-house method with binding buffer (P-value = 0.298) DNA yield or amplification of PCR products.
ISSN:2215-0161