Genomic DNA from mice: A comparison of recovery methods and tissue sources

被引:40
|
作者
Hofstetter, JR
Zhang, AW
Mayeda, AR
Guscar, T
Nurnberger, JI
Lahiri, DK
机构
[1] Indiana Univ, Sch Med, Dept Psychiat, Inst Psychiat Res, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA
[2] Richard L Roudebush Vet Affairs Med Ctr, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1006/bmme.1997.2637
中图分类号
Q5 [生物化学]; Q7 [分子生物学];
学科分类号
071010 ; 081704 ;
摘要
Our aim is to identify an extraction method and the source of mouse tissue(s) that could allow a high-resolution genomic scan from a living mouse. We compared and optimized two methods for yield, purity of DNA, and their use in the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of DNA extracted from different mouse tissues. In addition to whole blood, tissue samples from the brain, liver, testis, and tail were included in this study. The Rapid Method (RM) is preferable for the whole blood samples-and testis and brain tissue samples because it is quicker, less toxic, and more cost-effective than the proteinase K method (PM). For liver the PM produced higher yields of DNA with less degradation than the RM. For tail tip, the PM produced a higher yield of DNA, but the RM resulted in a higher yield of PCR product. From a living mouse, a tail snip generated a sufficient amount of DNA for several hundred PCRs but not a complete genomic scan. We suggest that the RM can be used to extract genomic DNA for a complete genomic scan which requires either testicular tissues or repeated blood samples from the suborbital sinus over several months without sacrificing the animal. (C) 1997 Academic Press.
引用
收藏
页码:197 / 202
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Comparison of Different Drying Methods for Recovery of Mushroom DNA
    Wang, Shouxian
    Liu, Yu
    Xu, Jianping
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2017, 7
  • [22] Comparison of Different Drying Methods for Recovery of Mushroom DNA
    Shouxian Wang
    Yu Liu
    Jianping Xu
    Scientific Reports, 7
  • [23] Comparison of three DNA extraction methods for recovery of soil protist DNA
    Santos, Susana S.
    Nielsen, Tue Kjaergaard
    Hansen, Lars H.
    Winding, Anne
    JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGICAL METHODS, 2015, 115 : 13 - 19
  • [24] Comparison of six methods for Loa loa genomic DNA extraction
    Dieki, Roland
    Emvo, Edouard Nsi
    Akue, Jean Paul
    PLOS ONE, 2022, 17 (03):
  • [25] Comparison of Four Methods to extract Bacterial DNA from Infected Fish Tissue
    Tulay, Cagatay Ifakat
    RESEARCH JOURNAL OF BIOTECHNOLOGY, 2013, 8 (10): : 52 - 55
  • [26] Comparison of three methods for recovery of Brucella canis DNA from canine blood samples
    Batinga, Maria Cryskely A.
    dos Santos, Jaine C.
    Lima, Julia T. R.
    Bigotto, Maria Fernando. D.
    Muner, Kerstin
    Faita, Thalita
    Soares, Rodrigo M.
    da Silva, David A. V.
    Oliveira, Tricia M. F. S.
    Ferreira, Helena L.
    Diniz, Jaqueline A.
    Keid, Lara B.
    JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGICAL METHODS, 2017, 143 : 26 - 31
  • [27] COMPARISON OF THREE WHOLE GENOME AMPLIFICATION (WGA) METHODS OF GENOMIC DNA FROM ESCHERICHIA COLI
    Ma Chao
    Li Zhiyang
    Li Xiaolong
    He Lei
    He Nongyue
    IFPT'6: PROGRESS ON POST-GENOME TECHNOLOGIES, PROCEEDINGS, 2009, : 229 - 231
  • [28] Comparison of methods for high quantity and quality genomic DNA extraction from raw cow milk
    Usman, T.
    Yu, Y.
    Liu, C.
    Fan, Z.
    Wang, Y.
    GENETICS AND MOLECULAR RESEARCH, 2014, 13 (02) : 3319 - 3328
  • [29] Comparison of three RNA amplification methods as sources of DNA for sequencing
    Chadwick, N
    Wakefield, AJ
    Pounder, RE
    Bruce, IJ
    BIOTECHNIQUES, 1998, 25 (05) : 818 - +
  • [30] A COMPARISON OF DNA RECOVERY METHODS USING DNA 17 AND RAPID HIT DNA TECHNOLOGIES
    Walton-Williams, Laura
    Hartless, Sophie
    FORENSIC SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL, 2017, 277 : 125 - 125