Comparison of commercially available DNA and RNA extraction kits for wildlife feces collected from the environment.

IF 2.2 4区工程技术 Q3 BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS

BioTechniques Pub Date : 2024-09-13 DOI:10.1080/07366205.2024.2397284

James D Feller,Leah Colton

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Wildlife fecal samples were collected across two Air Force installations to evaluate the effectiveness of commercially available DNA and RNA extraction kits. Four DNA kits, two DNA/RNA kits and one RNA only kit were used. Sample extracts were evaluated on nucleic acid concentration, TapeStation DNA or RNA Integrity Number values and presence of PCR inhibitors. For the DNA kits, PFP produced higher concentrations compared with PLM and RPM, while MWFM gave higher DNA Integrity Number values when compared with RPM. No PCR inhibition was detected. For the RNA kits, RPM gave higher concentrations compared with MWTV and no differences were seen in RNA Integrity Number values. PCR inhibition was observed in all RNA samples, with MWTV exhibiting higher inhibition compared with RPM.

查看原文本刊更多论文

针对从环境中收集的野生动物粪便的市售 DNA 和 RNA 提取试剂盒比较。

在两个空军设施内收集了野生动物粪便样本，以评估市售 DNA 和 RNA 提取试剂盒的有效性。使用了四种 DNA 提取试剂盒、两种 DNA/RNA 提取试剂盒和一种仅提取 RNA 的试剂盒。对样本提取物的核酸浓度、TapeStation DNA 或 RNA 完整性数值以及是否存在 PCR 抑制剂进行了评估。就 DNA 试剂盒而言，PFP 产生的浓度高于 PLM 和 RPM，而 MWFM 产生的 DNA 完整性数值高于 RPM。没有检测到 PCR 抑制剂。在 RNA 试剂盒中，RPM 的浓度高于 MWTV，但 RNA 完整性数值没有差异。在所有 RNA 样品中都发现了 PCR 抑制现象，其中 MWTV 的抑制率高于 RPM。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

BioTechniques 工程技术-生化研究方法

CiteScore

4.40

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

3.3 months

期刊介绍： BioTechniques is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal dedicated to publishing original laboratory methods, related technical and software tools, and methods-oriented review articles that are of broad interest to professional life scientists, as well as to scientists from other disciplines (e.g., chemistry, physics, computer science, plant and agricultural science and climate science) interested in life science applications for their technologies. Since 1983, BioTechniques has been a leading peer-reviewed journal for methods-related research. The journal considers: Reports describing innovative new methods, platforms and software, substantive modifications to existing methods, or innovative applications of existing methods, techniques & tools to new models or scientific questions Descriptions of technical tools that facilitate the design or performance of experiments or data analysis, such as software and simple laboratory devices Surveys of technical approaches related to broad fields of research Reviews discussing advancements in techniques and methods related to broad fields of research Letters to the Editor and Expert Opinions highlighting interesting observations or cautionary tales concerning experimental design, methodology or analysis.