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
  • [31] Sample preservation methods impact arbuscular mycorrhizal DNA recovery from sugarcane root tissue
    Claassens, Anders
    Nock, Catherine J.
    Rose, Michael T.
    Van Zwieten, Lukas
    Rose, Terry J.
    RHIZOSPHERE, 2022, 22
  • [32] Comparison of operational DNA recovery methods: Swabs versus tapelifts
    Burmuzoska, Isabella
    Hogg, Katherine
    Raymond, Jennifer
    Hitchcock, Catherine
    Meakin, Georgina E.
    FORENSIC SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL GENETICS SUPPLEMENT SERIES, 2022, 8 : 50 - 52
  • [33] A comparison of five methods to maximize RNA and DNA isolation yield from adipose tissue
    Dabrowski, Pawel
    Rasmus, Marta
    Jundzill, Arkadiusz
    Drewa, Tomasz
    Pokrywczynska, Marta
    PEERJ, 2024, 12
  • [34] Comparison of three methods of parasitoid polydnavirus genomic DNA isolation to facilitate polydnavirus genomic sequencing
    Rodriguez-Perez, Mario A.
    Beckage, Nancy E.
    ARCHIVES OF INSECT BIOCHEMISTRY AND PHYSIOLOGY, 2008, 67 (04) : 202 - 209
  • [35] Comparison of mango genomic DNA isolation methods for next generation sequencing
    Sharma, Nimisha
    Singh, A. K.
    Srivastav, Manish
    Singh, B. P.
    Mahto, A. K.
    Singh, N. K.
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE, 2014, 71 (02) : 260 - 263
  • [36] Comparison of seven methods for extraction of bacterial DNA from fecal and cecal samples of mice
    Ferrand, Janina
    Patron, Kevin
    Legrand-Frossi, Christine
    Frippiat, Jean-Pol
    Merlin, Christophe
    Alauzet, Corentine
    Lozniewski, Alain
    JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGICAL METHODS, 2014, 105 : 180 - 185
  • [37] COMPARISON OF METHODS FOR RECOVERY OF CRYPTOSPORIDIUM FROM WATER
    WHITMORE, TN
    CARRINGTON, EG
    WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 1993, 27 (3-4) : 69 - 76
  • [38] Comparison of methods in the recovery and amplificability of DNA from fresh and processed sardine and anchovy muscle tissues
    Besbes, Nadia
    Fattouch, Sami
    Sadok, Saloua
    FOOD CHEMISTRY, 2011, 129 (02) : 665 - 671
  • [39] Genomic DNA sequencing methods
    Favello, A
    Hillier, L
    Wilson, RK
    METHODS IN CELL BIOLOGY, VOL 48, 1995, 48 : 551 - 569
  • [40] Isolation of Genomic DNA from Mammalian Cells and Fixed Tissue
    Miskimen, Kristy L. S.
    Miron, Penelope L.
    CURRENT PROTOCOLS, 2023, 3 (07):