{"title":"人粪便中肠道寄生虫DNA提取方法的比较研究。","authors":"Siriporn Srirungruang, Buraya Mahajindawong, Panachai Nimitpanya, Uthaitip Bunkasem, Pattama Ayuyoe, Surang Nuchprayoon, Vivornpun Sanprasert","doi":"10.3390/diagnostics12112588","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Stool samples typically contain PCR inhibitors; however, helminths are difficult to lyse and can cause false-negative PCR results. We assessed the effective methods for extracting DNA from different kinds of intestinal parasites. We compared the most common DNA extraction methods from stool samples, including the phenol-chloroform technique with or without a bead-beating step (P and PB), a QIAamp Fast DNA Stool Mini Kit (Q), and a QIAamp PowerFecal Pro DNA Kit (QB). Genomic DNA was extracted from 85 stool samples collected from patients infected with <i>Blastocystis</i> sp., <i>Ascaris lumbricoides, Trichuris trichiura,</i> hookworm, and <i>Strongyloides stercoralis</i>. DNA quantity and DNA quality were evaluated via spectrophotometry, and DNA integrity was assessed by PCR. We found that P and PB provided higher DNA yields (~4 times) than when using Q and QB. However, P showed the lowest detection rate of PCR (8.2%), wherein only <i>S. stercoralis</i> (7 out of 20 samples) was detected. QB showed the highest detection rate of PCR (61.2%). After plasmid spikes, only 5 samples by QB were negative while 60 samples by P were still negative. Remarkably, QB could extract DNA from all the groups of parasites that we tested. These results indicate that QB is the most effective DNA extraction method for the diagnosis and monitoring of intestinal parasites via PCR.</p>","PeriodicalId":520604,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9689707/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Study of DNA Extraction Methods for the PCR Detection of Intestinal Parasites in Human Stool Samples.\",\"authors\":\"Siriporn Srirungruang, Buraya Mahajindawong, Panachai Nimitpanya, Uthaitip Bunkasem, Pattama Ayuyoe, Surang Nuchprayoon, Vivornpun Sanprasert\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/diagnostics12112588\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Stool samples typically contain PCR inhibitors; however, helminths are difficult to lyse and can cause false-negative PCR results. We assessed the effective methods for extracting DNA from different kinds of intestinal parasites. We compared the most common DNA extraction methods from stool samples, including the phenol-chloroform technique with or without a bead-beating step (P and PB), a QIAamp Fast DNA Stool Mini Kit (Q), and a QIAamp PowerFecal Pro DNA Kit (QB). Genomic DNA was extracted from 85 stool samples collected from patients infected with <i>Blastocystis</i> sp., <i>Ascaris lumbricoides, Trichuris trichiura,</i> hookworm, and <i>Strongyloides stercoralis</i>. DNA quantity and DNA quality were evaluated via spectrophotometry, and DNA integrity was assessed by PCR. We found that P and PB provided higher DNA yields (~4 times) than when using Q and QB. However, P showed the lowest detection rate of PCR (8.2%), wherein only <i>S. stercoralis</i> (7 out of 20 samples) was detected. QB showed the highest detection rate of PCR (61.2%). After plasmid spikes, only 5 samples by QB were negative while 60 samples by P were still negative. Remarkably, QB could extract DNA from all the groups of parasites that we tested. These results indicate that QB is the most effective DNA extraction method for the diagnosis and monitoring of intestinal parasites via PCR.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520604,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9689707/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12112588\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12112588","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
粪便样本通常含有PCR抑制剂;然而,蠕虫很难分解,可能导致PCR结果假阴性。我们评估了不同种类肠道寄生虫DNA提取的有效方法。我们比较了粪便样本中最常见的DNA提取方法,包括有或没有打珠步骤的苯酚-氯仿技术(P和PB), QIAamp快速粪便DNA迷你试剂盒(Q)和QIAamp PowerFecal Pro DNA试剂盒(QB)。从85例感染囊虫、类蛔虫、毛滴虫、钩虫和粪圆线虫的患者粪便样本中提取基因组DNA。分光光度法测定DNA数量和DNA质量,PCR法测定DNA完整性。结果表明,磷和铅的DNA产量是Q和QB的4倍。而P的PCR检出率最低(8.2%),仅检测到S. stercoralis(20份样品中有7份)。QB的PCR检出率最高(61.2%)。质粒刺突后,QB检测仅5份为阴性,P检测仍为阴性60份。值得注意的是,QB可以从我们测试的所有寄生虫组中提取DNA。以上结果表明,QB是PCR诊断和监测肠道寄生虫最有效的DNA提取方法。
Comparative Study of DNA Extraction Methods for the PCR Detection of Intestinal Parasites in Human Stool Samples.
Stool samples typically contain PCR inhibitors; however, helminths are difficult to lyse and can cause false-negative PCR results. We assessed the effective methods for extracting DNA from different kinds of intestinal parasites. We compared the most common DNA extraction methods from stool samples, including the phenol-chloroform technique with or without a bead-beating step (P and PB), a QIAamp Fast DNA Stool Mini Kit (Q), and a QIAamp PowerFecal Pro DNA Kit (QB). Genomic DNA was extracted from 85 stool samples collected from patients infected with Blastocystis sp., Ascaris lumbricoides, Trichuris trichiura, hookworm, and Strongyloides stercoralis. DNA quantity and DNA quality were evaluated via spectrophotometry, and DNA integrity was assessed by PCR. We found that P and PB provided higher DNA yields (~4 times) than when using Q and QB. However, P showed the lowest detection rate of PCR (8.2%), wherein only S. stercoralis (7 out of 20 samples) was detected. QB showed the highest detection rate of PCR (61.2%). After plasmid spikes, only 5 samples by QB were negative while 60 samples by P were still negative. Remarkably, QB could extract DNA from all the groups of parasites that we tested. These results indicate that QB is the most effective DNA extraction method for the diagnosis and monitoring of intestinal parasites via PCR.