4.6 Article

Single-tube colony PCR for DNA amplification and transformant screening of oleaginous microalgae

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYCOLOGY
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 1719-1726

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10811-013-0220-3

关键词

Biofuels; Colony PCR; High throughput; Microalgae; Single tube; Transformant screening

资金

  1. Institute of Marine and Environmental Technology, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
  2. University of Maryland Baltimore County

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently, several colony PCR methods have been developed to simplify DNA isolation procedure and facilitate PCR-based colony screening efforts in microalgae. A main drawback of current protocols is that cell collection, disruption, and genomic DNA extraction are required preceding the PCR step, making the colony PCR process laborious and costly. In the present study, we have developed a novel procedure that eliminates any steps of DNA extraction and allows the colony screening to be performed in a single PCR tube: algal cells (as low as 5,000) from agar plates or liquid cultures were directly transferred into a PCR tube containing 2x PCR buffer and boiled for 5-10 min depending on different algal strains, followed by addition of other PCR components (dNTPs, primers, and polymerase) and then subjected to conventional PCR reaction. The procedure documented here worked well not only for the model alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, but also for the thick-walled oleaginous strains such as Chlorella, Haematococcus, Nannochloropsis, and Scenedesmus with its efficacy independent on amplicon sizes and primer pairs. In addition, screening of Chlorella zofingiensis transformants was achieved using this method. Collectively, our single-tube colony PCR is a much simpler and more cost-effective procedure as compared to those previously reported and has broad applications including gene cloning, strain determination, and high-throughput screening of algae colonies and transformants for biomass and biofuel production.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据