2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2005.06.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An assessment of the efficiency of fungal DNA extraction methods for maximizing the detection of medically important fungi using PCR

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
81
0
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 116 publications
(87 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
4
81
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…A series of comparisons was required to determine the optimal extraction technique for fungal biofilm community DNA. Based on methods described by Karakousis et al (2006), four factors were compared: (i) lyticase (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) concentration: 200 U (Campbell et al 2009) and 400 U (Karakousis et al 2006); (ii) digestion buffer type: sorbitol buffer (Griffiths et al 2006) and MoBio-supplied extraction kit buffer; (iii) initial digestion time: 4 h (Campbell et al 2009) and overnight (Karakousis et al 2006); and (iv) extraction kit: UltraClean Microbial DNA Extraction kit and PowerBiofilm DNA Extraction kit (MoBio Laboratories, Inc., Carlsbad, CA, USA). For this study, these comparisons revealed that digestion with 200 U lyticase in MoBio PowerBiofilm buffers BF1 and BF2 for 4 h at 30°C in a dry bath incubator, then physical disruption with a tissue homogenizer and micropestle, followed by extraction with MoBio PowerBiofilm DNA Extraction kit produced the greatest yield of DNA for downstream reactions.…”
Section: Optimization Of Dna Extraction From Biofilms In Preparation mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A series of comparisons was required to determine the optimal extraction technique for fungal biofilm community DNA. Based on methods described by Karakousis et al (2006), four factors were compared: (i) lyticase (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) concentration: 200 U (Campbell et al 2009) and 400 U (Karakousis et al 2006); (ii) digestion buffer type: sorbitol buffer (Griffiths et al 2006) and MoBio-supplied extraction kit buffer; (iii) initial digestion time: 4 h (Campbell et al 2009) and overnight (Karakousis et al 2006); and (iv) extraction kit: UltraClean Microbial DNA Extraction kit and PowerBiofilm DNA Extraction kit (MoBio Laboratories, Inc., Carlsbad, CA, USA). For this study, these comparisons revealed that digestion with 200 U lyticase in MoBio PowerBiofilm buffers BF1 and BF2 for 4 h at 30°C in a dry bath incubator, then physical disruption with a tissue homogenizer and micropestle, followed by extraction with MoBio PowerBiofilm DNA Extraction kit produced the greatest yield of DNA for downstream reactions.…”
Section: Optimization Of Dna Extraction From Biofilms In Preparation mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The dried mycelia were then ground into a fine powder with liquid nitrogen using mortar and pestle (Karakousis et al, 2006). DNA extraction was done using DNeasy Mini Plant kit (Qiagen) and the eluted DNA was stored at -20°C until further use.…”
Section: Molecular Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A. flavus mycelia grows in parallel for 48, 72, 96 and 120 h in Cove's minimal salt medium (CMSM)supplemented with ten mM nitrate (nitrate medium) [5], collected on Miracloth, blotted dry, quickly frozen in liquid nitrogen, and stored at 28˚C until use [11]. Mycelia is grind to a fine powder in a mortar and pestle in the presence of liquid nitrogen [16].…”
Section: Fungal Strains and Isolation Of Total Rnamentioning
confidence: 99%