A comparison of four methods for PCR inhibitor removal

被引:50
|
作者
Hu, Qingqing [1 ]
Liu, Yuxuan [1 ]
Yi, Shaohua [1 ]
Huang, Daixin [1 ]
机构
[1] Huazhong Univ Sci & Technol, Tongji Med Coll, Dept Forens Med, Wuhan 430030, Peoples R China
关键词
Forensic DNA analysis; PCR inhibition; PowerClean (R) DNA Clean-Up; DNA IQ (TM); Phenol-Chloroform; Chelex (R)-100; POLYMERASE-CHAIN-REACTION; DNA EXTRACTION; SPIN COLUMNS; AMPLIFICATION; SAMPLES; RECOVERY; KIT;
D O I
10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.12.001
中图分类号
Q3 [遗传学];
学科分类号
071007 ; 090102 ;
摘要
Biological samples collected from the crime scenes often contain some compounds that can inhibit the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The removal of PCR inhibitors from the extracts prior to the PCR amplification is vital for successful forensic DNA typing. This paper aimed to evaluate the ability of four different methods (PowerClean (R) DNA Clean-Up kit, DNA IQ (TM) System, Phenol-Chloroformextraction and Chelex (R)-100 methods) to remove eight commonly encountered PCR inhibitors including: melanin, humic acid, collagen, bile salt, hematin, calciumions, indigo and urea. Each of these PCR inhibitors was effectively removed by the PowerClean (R) DNA Clean-Up kit and DNA IQ (TM) System as demonstrated by generating more complete short tandemrepeat (STR) profiles from the cleaned up inhibitor samples than from the raw inhibitor samples. The Phenol-Chloroform extraction and Chelex (R)-100 methods, however, could only remove some of eight PCR inhibitors. Our results demonstrated that the PowerClean (R) DNA Clean-Up kit and DNAIQ (TM) System were very effective for the removal of known PCR inhibitors that are routinely found in DNA extracts from forensic samples. (c) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:94 / 97
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Comparison Study of Four Extraction Methods Combined with PCR and LAMP for Feline Tritrichomonas foetus Detection in Fecal Samples
    Dabrowska, Joanna
    Karamon, Jacek
    Kochanowski, Maciej
    Sroka, Jacek
    Zdybel, Jolanta
    Cencek, Tomasz
    PATHOGENS, 2022, 11 (05):
  • [22] Comparison of four different methods for extraction of Stachybotrys chartarum spore DNA and verification by real-time PCR
    Black, J. A.
    Foarde, K. K.
    JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGICAL METHODS, 2007, 70 (01) : 75 - 81
  • [23] Comparison of four RNA extraction methods for the detection of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus by RT-PCR
    Guarino, H
    Goyal, SM
    Murtaugh, MP
    MICROBIOLOGICA, 1997, 20 (04): : 319 - 324
  • [24] COMPARISON OF BACKGROUND REMOVAL METHODS FOR XPS
    REPOUX, M
    SURFACE AND INTERFACE ANALYSIS, 1992, 18 (07) : 567 - 570
  • [25] Comparison of three RT-PCR methods
    Sellner, LN
    Turbett, GR
    BIOTECHNIQUES, 1998, 25 (02) : 230 - 234
  • [26] Comparison of PCR with phenotypic methods for the speciation of enterococci
    Woodford, N
    Egelton, CM
    Morrison, D
    STREPTOCOCCI AND THE HOST, 1997, 418 : 405 - 408
  • [27] Combining static and dynamic modelling methods: a comparison of four methods
    Free Univ, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Comput J, 1 (17-30):
  • [28] A comparison of four methods for simulating the diffusion process
    Francis Tuerlinckx
    Eric Maris
    Roger Ratcliff
    Paul De Boeck
    Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 2001, 33 : 443 - 456
  • [29] Comparison of Four Immobilization Methods for Different Transaminases
    Heinks, Tobias
    Montua, Nicolai
    Teune, Michelle
    Liedtke, Jan
    Hoehne, Matthias
    Bornscheuer, Uwe T.
    von Mollard, Gabriele Fischer
    CATALYSTS, 2023, 13 (02)
  • [30] A comparison study of four SNP selection methods
    Butler, JM
    Bishop, DT
    Barrett, JH
    ANNALS OF HUMAN GENETICS, 2005, 69 : 765 - 766