Comparison of Commercial DNA Preparation Kits for the Detection of Brucellae in Tissue Using Quantitative Real-time PCR

Overview

Journal BMC Infect Dis

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Infectious Diseases

Date 2010 Apr 21

PMID 20403208

Citations 8

Authors

Herbert Tomaso

Mireille Kattar

Meike Eickhoff

Ulrich Wernery

Sascha Al Dahouk

Eberhard Straube

Heinrich Neubauer

Holger C Scholz

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The detection of Brucellae in tissue specimens using PCR assays is difficult because the amount of bacteria is usually low. Therefore, optimised DNA extraction methods are critical. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of commercial kits for the extraction of Brucella DNA.

Methods: Five kits were evaluated using clinical specimens: QIAamp DNA Mini Kit (QIAGEN), peqGold Tissue DNA Mini Kit (PeqLab), UltraClean Tissue and Cells DNA Isolation Kit (MoBio), DNA Isolation Kit for Cells and Tissues (Roche), and NucleoSpin Tissue (Macherey-Nagel). DNA yield was determined using a quantitative real-time PCR assay targeting IS711 that included an internal amplification control.

Results: Kits of QIAGEN and Roche provided the highest amount of DNA, Macherey-Nagel and Peqlab products were intermediate whereas MoBio yielded the lowest amount of DNA. Differences were significant (p < 0.05) and of diagnostic relevance. Sample volume, elution volume, and processing time were also compared.

Conclusions: We observed differences in DNA yield as high as two orders of magnitude for some samples between the best and the worst DNA extraction kits and inhibition was observed occasionally. This indicates that DNA purification may be more relevant than expected when the amount of DNA in tissue is very low.

Citing Articles

Fatal acute undifferentiated febrile illness among clinically suspected leptospirosis cases in Colombia, 2016-2019.

Parra Barrera E, Reales-Gonzalez J, Salas D, Reyes Santamaria E, Bello S, Rico A PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2023; 17(10):e0011683.

PMID: 37844106 PMC: 10602388. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011683.

A rapid and simple bead-bashing-based method for genomic DNA extraction from mammalian tissue.

Wei S, Levy B, Hoffman N, Cujar C, Rodney-Sandy R, Wapner R Biotechniques. 2020; 68(5):240-244.

PMID: 32054310 PMC: 7252492. DOI: 10.2144/btn-2019-0172.

Laboratory Diagnosis of Human Brucellosis.

Yagupsky P, Morata P, Colmenero J Clin Microbiol Rev. 2019; 33(1).

PMID: 31722888 PMC: 6860005. DOI: 10.1128/CMR.00073-19.

Answer to February 2018 Photo Quiz.

Held J, Schweizer H, Zange S, Panning M, Kern W, Wagner D J Clin Microbiol. 2018; 56(2).

PMID: 29367312 PMC: 5786723. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.03353-15.

Detection and identification of Legionella species in hospital water supplies through Polymerase Chain Reaction (16S rRNA).

Rafiee M, Jahangiri-Rad M, Hajjaran H, Mesdaghinia A, Hajaghazadeh M J Environ Health Sci Eng. 2014; 12:83.

PMID: 24860661 PMC: 4032159. DOI: 10.1186/2052-336X-12-83.

References

Queipo-Ortuno M, Tena F, Colmenero J, Morata P . Comparison of seven commercial DNA extraction kits for the recovery of Brucella DNA from spiked human serum samples using real-time PCR. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007; 27(2):109-14. DOI: 10.1007/s10096-007-0409-y. View

Bricker B, Halling S . Differentiation of Brucella abortus bv. 1, 2, and 4, Brucella melitensis, Brucella ovis, and Brucella suis bv. 1 by PCR. J Clin Microbiol. 1994; 32(11):2660-6. PMC: 264138. DOI: 10.1128/jcm.32.11.2660-2666.1994. View

Tomaso H, Reisinger E, Al Dahouk S, Frangoulidis D, Rakin A, Landt O . Rapid detection of Yersinia pestis with multiplex real-time PCR assays using fluorescent hybridisation probes. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2003; 38(2):117-26. DOI: 10.1016/S0928-8244(03)00184-6. View

Bricker B . PCR as a diagnostic tool for brucellosis. Vet Microbiol. 2002; 90(1-4):435-46. DOI: 10.1016/s0378-1135(02)00228-6. View

Leal-Klevezas D, Lopez-Merino A, Martinez-Soriano J . Single-step PCR for detection of Brucella spp. from blood and milk of infected animals. J Clin Microbiol. 1995; 33(12):3087-90. PMC: 228649. DOI: 10.1128/jcm.33.12.3087-3090.1995. View

Al Dahouk S, Nockler K, Scholz H, Pfeffer M, Neubauer H, Tomaso H . Evaluation of genus-specific and species-specific real-time PCR assays for the identification of Brucella spp. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2007; 45(11):1464-70. DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2007.305. View

Zerva L, Bourantas K, Mitka S, Kansouzidou A, Legakis N . Serum is the preferred clinical specimen for diagnosis of human brucellosis by PCR. J Clin Microbiol. 2001; 39(4):1661-4. PMC: 87995. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.4.1661-1664.2001. View

Al Dahouk S, Tomaso H, Nockler K, Neubauer H, Frangoulidis D . Laboratory-based diagnosis of brucellosis--a review of the literature. Part I: Techniques for direct detection and identification of Brucella spp. Clin Lab. 2003; 49(9-10):487-505. View

OLeary S, Sheahan M, Sweeney T . Brucella abortus detection by PCR assay in blood, milk and lymph tissue of serologically positive cows. Res Vet Sci. 2006; 81(2):170-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2005.12.001. View

10.

Neubauer H, Meyer H, Prior J, Aleksic S, Hensel A, Splettstosser W . A combination of different polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays for the presumptive identification of Yersinia pestis. J Vet Med B Infect Dis Vet Public Health. 2000; 47(8):573-80. DOI: 10.1046/j.1439-0450.2000.00384.x. View