4.2 Article

Glycerol-treated nuclear suspensions-an efficient preservation method for flow cytometric analysis of plant samples

期刊

CHROMOSOME RESEARCH
卷 20, 期 2, 页码 303-315

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10577-012-9277-0

关键词

DAPI; flow cytometry; genome size; ploidy; propidium iodide; sample preservation

资金

  1. Czech Science Foundation [206/08/H049, P506/10/0704]
  2. Academy of Science of the Czech Republic [AV0Z60050516]
  3. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic [MSM0021620828, MSM6007665801]
  4. [138/2010/P]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Flow cytometry (FCM) has been widely used in plant science to determine the amount of nuclear DNA, either in absolute units or in relative terms, as an indicator of ploidy. The requirement for fresh material in some applications, however, limits the value of FCM in field research, including plant biosystematics, ecology and population biology. Dried plant samples have proven to be a suitable alternative in some cases (large-scale ploidy screening) although tissue dehydration is often associated with a decrease in the quality of FCM analysis. The present study tested, using time-scale laboratory and in situ field experiments, the applicability of glycerol-treated nuclear suspension for DNA flow cytometry. We demonstrate that plant nuclei preserved in ice-cold buffer + glycerol solution remain intact for at least a few weeks and provide estimates of nuclear DNA content that are highly comparable and of similar quality to those obtained from fresh tissue. The protocol is compatible with both DAPI and propidium iodide staining, and allows not only the determination of ploidy level but also genome size in absolute units. Despite its higher laboriousness, glycerol-preserved nuclei apparently represent the most reliable way of sample preservation for genome size research. We assume that the protocol will provide a vital alternative to other preservation methods, especially when stringent criteria on the quality of FCM analysis are required.

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