Enzymatic Treatment of Specimens before DNA Extraction Directly Influences Molecular Detection of Infectious Agents

Abstract

IntroductionBiological samples, pharmaceuticals or food contain proteins, lipids, polymers, ammoniums and macromolecules that alter the detection of infectious agents by DNA amplification techniques (PCR). Moreover the targeted DNA has to be released from the complex cell walls and the compact nucleoprotein matrixes and cleared from potential inhibitors. The goal of the present work was to assess the efficiency of enzymatic pretreatments on infectious agents to make DNA available for further extraction and amplification.Methods Staphylococcus epidermidis, Streptococcus mitis, Propionibacterium acnes, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Candida albicans, Aspergillus niger and Fusarium solani were mixed with an internal control virus and treated with: 1) proteinase K; 2) lyticase and 3) lyticase followed by proteinase K. DNAs was manually extracted using the QIAmp DNA Mini kit or the MagNA Pure Compact automate. DNA extraction yields and the inhibitors were assessed with a phocid Herpesvirus. Bacterial detection was performed using TaqMan real-time PCR and yeasts and filamentous Fungi with HRM (real-time PCR followed by high-resolution melting analysis).ResultsViral DNA was released, extracted and detected using manual and automatic methods without pre enzymatic treatments. Either the manual or the automatic DNA extraction systems did not meet the sensitivity expectations if enzymatic treatments were not performed before: lyticase for Fungi and Proteinase K for Bacteria. The addition of lyticase and proteinase K did not improve results. For Fungi the detection after lyticase was higher than for Proteinase K, for which melting analysis did not allow fungal specification.DiscussionColumns and magnetic beads allowed collecting DNA and separate PCR inhibitors. Detection rates cannot be related to DNA-avidity of beads or to elution but to the lack of proteolysis.

Effort versus Reward: Preparing Samples for Fungal Community Characterization in High-Throughput Sequencing Surveys of Soils

“…While our results suggest unmodified protocols from standard DNA extraction kits is sufficient for general characterizing fungal richness of soil samples in HTS surveys, we reiterate that study aims must be considered. For example, more stringent DNA extraction treatments may be necessary to detect fungi exhibiting resistant structures [ 50 – 52 ]; however, facilitating extraction of DNA from such structures (e.g., resistant spores) is often undesirable as the associated fungal taxa may represent transient, rather than living, components of the community.…”

The lung mycobiome: an emerging field of the human respiratory microbiome

“…As proposed by Diaz et al (2014) , there are numerous pitfalls associated with the mycobiome that we need to challenge collectively. First, fungal cells are notoriously difficult to break open and might require chemical or mechanical lysis as a pre-extraction step ( Chen et al, 2002 ; Fredricks et al, 2005 ; Griffiths, 2006 ; Plassart et al, 2012 ; Dupuy et al, 2014 ; Goldschmidt et al, 2014 ). Another technical point in measuring fungi using a DNA based method, is to be able to distinguish the DNA of living microorganisms and that of dead ones.…”

Temperature‐Controlled Antimicrobial Release from Poly(diethylene glycol methylether methacrylate)‐Functionalized Bottleneck‐Structured Porous Silicon for the Inhibition of Bacterial Growth

“…Both for traditional detection of bacterial infection by swabbing and subsequent microbiology cell culture and for modern methods, wound dressing removal is typically necessary . However, it is painful and may further delay the healing process . To circumvent the time consuming sampling and culturing for the detection of bacterial infections, the development of new biosensors, which can be incorporated into the wound dressing and report the presence of bacteria in situ, is an attractive objective.…”