Determinants of DNA yield and quality from different non-invasive sampling methods

Y. F. Choon, L. P. Karen-Ng, S. Hassan, J. Marhazlinda, R. Zain
{"title":"Determinants of DNA yield and quality from different non-invasive sampling methods","authors":"Y. F. Choon, L. P. Karen-Ng, S. Hassan, J. Marhazlinda, R. Zain","doi":"10.22452/ADUM.VOL19NO2.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: The purpose of this study was to determine the DNA yield and quality from different non-invasive sampling methods and to identify the method which gave the highest DNA yield. Method: Thirty-eight volunteers had been recruited in this study where blood, buccal cells and saliva were collected using various collection techniques. Buccal cells were collected by 1) cytobrush and 2) saline mouth rinsing or “swish”. Meanwhile saliva was collected by passive drooling method. Upon processing the white blood cell (WBC), buccal cells and saliva samples, DNA extraction was performed according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Quantification and quality (DNA ratio at A260/A280) of the extracted DNA were determined using NanoDropND-1000®. T-test was performed to compare means between DNA obtained from various collection methods. Results: DNA yields from buccal cells collected with cytobrush, “swish”. Saliva and WBC (mean ± SD) were (8.2 ± 5.9)ng/μl, (28.2 ± 14.9)ng/μl, (5.9 ± 9.5)ng/μl and (105.3 ± 75.0)ng/μl respectively. Meanwhile the mean DNA ratio at A260/A280 for cytobrush, “swish”, saliva and WBC were 2.3, 2.0, 1.7 and 1.8 respectively. Post hoc test with Bonferroni correction suggested that DNA yield from “swish” technique exhibited the least mean different as compared to the DNA extracted from WBC (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in the mean quality of the DNA extracted from WBC, saliva and buccal cells collected in these non-invasive methods (p=0.323). Conclusion: The “swish” technique of obtaining buccal cells yielded the highest amount of DNA and was of the quality of DNA extracted from blood sample.","PeriodicalId":75515,"journal":{"name":"Annals of dentistry","volume":"19 1","pages":"62-65"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22452/ADUM.VOL19NO2.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this study was to determine the DNA yield and quality from different non-invasive sampling methods and to identify the method which gave the highest DNA yield. Method: Thirty-eight volunteers had been recruited in this study where blood, buccal cells and saliva were collected using various collection techniques. Buccal cells were collected by 1) cytobrush and 2) saline mouth rinsing or “swish”. Meanwhile saliva was collected by passive drooling method. Upon processing the white blood cell (WBC), buccal cells and saliva samples, DNA extraction was performed according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Quantification and quality (DNA ratio at A260/A280) of the extracted DNA were determined using NanoDropND-1000®. T-test was performed to compare means between DNA obtained from various collection methods. Results: DNA yields from buccal cells collected with cytobrush, “swish”. Saliva and WBC (mean ± SD) were (8.2 ± 5.9)ng/μl, (28.2 ± 14.9)ng/μl, (5.9 ± 9.5)ng/μl and (105.3 ± 75.0)ng/μl respectively. Meanwhile the mean DNA ratio at A260/A280 for cytobrush, “swish”, saliva and WBC were 2.3, 2.0, 1.7 and 1.8 respectively. Post hoc test with Bonferroni correction suggested that DNA yield from “swish” technique exhibited the least mean different as compared to the DNA extracted from WBC (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in the mean quality of the DNA extracted from WBC, saliva and buccal cells collected in these non-invasive methods (p=0.323). Conclusion: The “swish” technique of obtaining buccal cells yielded the highest amount of DNA and was of the quality of DNA extracted from blood sample.
不同非侵入性取样方法对DNA产量和质量的决定因素
目的:测定不同非侵入性取样方法的DNA得率和质量,确定DNA得率最高的方法。方法:本研究招募了38名志愿者,采用不同的采集技术采集血液、口腔细胞和唾液。1)细胞刷和2)生理盐水漱口或“漱口”收集颊细胞。同时采用被动流涎法采集唾液。在处理白细胞(WBC),颊细胞和唾液样本后,根据制造商的方案进行DNA提取。采用NanoDropND-1000®测定提取DNA的定量和质量(A260/A280处的DNA比值)。采用t检验比较不同采集方法所得DNA的均值。结果:用细胞刷“刷”法提取颊细胞DNA。唾液和白细胞(平均值±SD)分别为(8.2±5.9)ng/μl、(28.2±14.9)ng/μl、(5.9±9.5)ng/μl和(105.3±75.0)ng/μl。细胞刷、“swish”、唾液和白细胞在A260/A280处的平均DNA比值分别为2.3、2.0、1.7和1.8。经Bonferroni校正的事后检验表明,与从白细胞中提取的DNA相比,“swish”技术的DNA产量表现出最小的平均差异(p<0.05)。两种无创方法提取的白细胞、唾液和颊细胞DNA的平均质量差异无统计学意义(p=0.323)。结论:“嗖嗖”法获得口腔细胞的DNA含量最高,且与血液中提取的DNA质量相当。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信