4.2 Article

Comparisons of Three Automated Systems for Genomic DNA Extraction in a Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory

期刊

YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 51, 期 1, 页码 104-110

出版社

YONSEI UNIV COLL MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2010.51.1.104

关键词

Automated system; nucleic acid extraction; DNA; polymerase chain reaction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The extraction of nucleic acid is initially a limiting step for successful molecular-based diagnostic workup. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of three automated DNA extraction systems for clinical laboratory use. Materials and Methods: Venous blood samples from 22 healthy volunteers were analyzed using QIAamp (R) Blood Mini Kit (Qiagen), MagNA Pure LC Nucleic Acid Isolation Kit I (Roche), and Magtration-Magnazorb DNA common kit-200N (PSS). The concentration of extracted DNAs was measured by NanoDrop ND-1000 (PeqLab). Also, extracted DNAs were confirmed by applying in direct agarose gel electrophoresis and were amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for human beta-globin gene. Results: The corrected concentrations of extracted DNAs were 25.42 +/- 8.82 ng/mu L (13.49-52.85 ng/mu L) by QIAamp (R) Blood Mini Kit (Qiagen), and 22.65 +/- 14.49 ng/mu L (19.18-93.39 ng/mu L) by MagNA Pure LC Nucleic Acid Isolation Kit 1, and 22.35 +/- 6.47 ng/mu L (12.57-35.08 ng/mu L) by Magtration-Magnazorb DNA common kit-200N (PSS). No statistically significant difference was noticed among the three commercial kits (p > 0.05). Only the mean value of DNA purity through PSS was slightly lower than others. All the extracted DNAs were successfully identified in direct agarose gel electrophoresis. And all the product of beta-globin gene PCR showed a reproducible pattern of bands. Conclusion: The effectiveness of the three automated extraction systems is of an equivalent level and good enough to produce reasonable results. Each laboratory could select the automated system according to its clinical and laboratory conditions.

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

4.2
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