Efficiency of chemical versus mechanical disruption methods of DNA extraction for the identification of oral Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria

X. Li, C.J. Bosch-Tijhof, Xi Wei, Johannes J. de Soet, W. Crielaard, C. van Loveren, D.M. Deng

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-12
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of International Medical Research
Volume48
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2020

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 81400505]; the Medical Scientific Research Foundation of Guangdong Province of China [grant number A2015198]; and the State Scholarship Fund of China Scholarship Council [grant number 201706385079].

FundersFunder number
National Natural Science Foundation of China81400505
Guangdong Medical Research FoundationA2015198
China Scholarship Council201706385079

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Efficiency of chemical versus mechanical disruption methods of DNA extraction for the identification of oral Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this