2018
DOI: 10.1007/s10811-018-1446-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dual quantitative PCR assay for identification and enumeration of Karlodinium veneficum and Karlodinium armiger combined with a simple and rapid DNA extraction method

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

4
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Karlodinium -specific primers [ 42 ] were also utilized for differentiating amplicons obtained from DNA extracts of bloom samples (seawater DNA extracts) by comparing melt curve profiles of previously sequenced strains to the melt curves obtained from seawater extracts ( Table 1 ). Amplifications were performed in an ABI 7300 (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA) in a 20 µL volume containing 0.5 µM of each primer and 1× concentration of SYBR Green reaction mix (Ref# 4364344; Life Technologies).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Karlodinium -specific primers [ 42 ] were also utilized for differentiating amplicons obtained from DNA extracts of bloom samples (seawater DNA extracts) by comparing melt curve profiles of previously sequenced strains to the melt curves obtained from seawater extracts ( Table 1 ). Amplifications were performed in an ABI 7300 (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA) in a 20 µL volume containing 0.5 µM of each primer and 1× concentration of SYBR Green reaction mix (Ref# 4364344; Life Technologies).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In our study, we used the recently developed Biomeme system for DNA extraction and portable real-time qPCR (Thomas et al, 2019) that allowed us to process samples in the field or laboratory immediately after collection, in contrast to previous studies that have used traditional bench-top procedures and instruments in the lab. Prior studies have found similar DNA extraction efficiency between the Biomeme system and other common methods (Rudko et al, 2018;Toldrà et al, 2018). Others have found similar eDNA detection levels between the Biomeme extraction and qPCR methods (end-to-end) and conventional laboratory procedures (Nguyen et al, 2018;Thomas et al, 2019), but one study did find lower detection rates using the Biomeme system due to both a higher rate of inhibition and lower sensitivity (Sepulveda et al, 2018).…”
Section: Water Sample Water Samplementioning
confidence: 97%
“…Afterwards, 50 mL of culture were harvested at the exponential phase by centrifugation (4300 g, 20 min). The resulting cell pellet was processed for DNA extraction using the phenol/chloroform/isoamylalcohol extraction (PCI) protocol according to Toldrà et al [88]. Genomic DNA was quantified and checked for its purity using a NanoDrop 2000 spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific).…”
Section: Molecular Identificationmentioning
confidence: 99%