2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2017.12.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative evaluation of DNA extraction methods for amplification by qPCR of superficial vs intracellular DNA from Bacillus spores

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our approach is based on the ability of C. botulinum GIII to survive the InstaGene extraction protocol, which seems to eliminate most of the other bacterial contaminants that usually disturb the isolation process. The InstaGene matrix has previously been shown to fail to extract intracellular DNA from Bacillus cereus spores [36]. Moreover, the same study demonstrated that the majority of B. cereus spores appeared little or unaffected by the InstaGene matrix extraction protocol.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…Our approach is based on the ability of C. botulinum GIII to survive the InstaGene extraction protocol, which seems to eliminate most of the other bacterial contaminants that usually disturb the isolation process. The InstaGene matrix has previously been shown to fail to extract intracellular DNA from Bacillus cereus spores [36]. Moreover, the same study demonstrated that the majority of B. cereus spores appeared little or unaffected by the InstaGene matrix extraction protocol.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…For example, in the anthrax mailing attack of 2001 in the US, Bacillus anthracis was cultured from the victim's cerebral spinal fluid and blood, and subsequently genotyped to identify the source of the microorganism (Keim, Budowle, & Ravel, 2011). Chemical‐, mechanical‐, or heat‐based DNA extraction methods are generally effective for bacteria and viruses (Alessandrini et al, 2019; Brauge et al, 2018; Cho et al, 2014; Hennechart‐Collette, Niveau, Martin‐Latil, Fraisse, & Perelle, 2019; Liu et al, 2012; Thomas et al, 2013), with the exception of bacteria endospores.…”
Section: Dna Extraction From Human Remains and Non‐conventional Samplesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bacteria endospores are encased in a tough protein coat, rendering some DNA extraction methods ineffective (Brauge et al, 2018; Rose et al, 2011; Thomas et al, 2013; Timbers et al, 2014). However, recent studies based on mechanical lysis using a French press and homogenizer (Brauge et al, 2018), as well as a novel chemical lysis method (sporeLYSE) have demonstrated effective DNA extraction from endospores (de Bruin, Chiefari, Wroblewski, Egan, & Kelly‐Cirino, 2019). Nevertheless, it remains to be seen how mechanical lysis can be used efficiently in forensic DNA extraction, since it is a cumbersome process.…”
Section: Dna Extraction From Human Remains and Non‐conventional Samplesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Alongside, we also tested the QIAamp DNA Mini kit, as it is commonly used for DNA extraction in laboratories [32]. Of note, there is residual DNA of the spore mother cell remaining on the spore surface, which, at least in part, is accessible for PCR [33][34][35]. Nevertheless, retrieved DNA concentrations were not sufficient for further downstream applications, such as nanopore sequencing, since library preparation requires a minimum of 0.5-1 µg of DNA.…”
Section: Dna Extraction Methods Impacts the Quality Of Sequencing Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%