Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

Comparison of DNA extraction methods for non-marine molluscs: Is modified CTAB DNA extraction method more efficient than DNA extraction kits?

Sudeshna Chakraborty, Anwesha Saha, N.A. Aravind
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/863167
Sudeshna Chakraborty
Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Royal Enclave, Sriramapura, Jakkur PO, Bangalore 560064, India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anwesha Saha
Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Royal Enclave, Sriramapura, Jakkur PO, Bangalore 560064, India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
N.A. Aravind
Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Royal Enclave, Sriramapura, Jakkur PO, Bangalore 560064, India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: aravind@atree.org
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Isolation of high molecular weight DNA from gastropod molluscs and its subsequent PCR amplification is considered difficult due to excessive mucopolysaccharides secretion which co-precipitate with DNA and obstruct successful amplification. In an attempt to address this issue, we describe a modified CTAB DNA extraction method that proved to work significantly better with a number of freshwater and terrestrial gastropod taxa. We compared the performance of this method with Qiagen® DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit. Reproducibility of amplification was verified using a set of taxon-specific primers wherein, modified CTAB extracted DNA could be replicated at least four out of five times but kit extracted DNA could not be replicated. Additionally, sequence quality was significantly better with CTAB extracted DNA. This could be attributed to the removal of polyphenolic compounds by polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP) which is the only difference between conventional and modified CTAB DNA extraction methods for animals. The genomic DNA isolated using modified CTAB protocol was of high quality (A260/280 ≥ 1.80) and could be used for downstream reactions even after long term storage (more than two years).

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted December 03, 2019.
Download PDF
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparison of DNA extraction methods for non-marine molluscs: Is modified CTAB DNA extraction method more efficient than DNA extraction kits?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Comparison of DNA extraction methods for non-marine molluscs: Is modified CTAB DNA extraction method more efficient than DNA extraction kits?
Sudeshna Chakraborty, Anwesha Saha, N.A. Aravind
bioRxiv 863167; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/863167
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Comparison of DNA extraction methods for non-marine molluscs: Is modified CTAB DNA extraction method more efficient than DNA extraction kits?
Sudeshna Chakraborty, Anwesha Saha, N.A. Aravind
bioRxiv 863167; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/863167

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Molecular Biology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (3575)
  • Biochemistry (7520)
  • Bioengineering (5479)
  • Bioinformatics (20677)
  • Biophysics (10258)
  • Cancer Biology (7931)
  • Cell Biology (11583)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (6563)
  • Ecology (10136)
  • Epidemiology (2065)
  • Evolutionary Biology (13540)
  • Genetics (9498)
  • Genomics (12788)
  • Immunology (7872)
  • Microbiology (19451)
  • Molecular Biology (7614)
  • Neuroscience (41875)
  • Paleontology (306)
  • Pathology (1252)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2179)
  • Physiology (3249)
  • Plant Biology (7007)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1291)
  • Synthetic Biology (1942)
  • Systems Biology (5406)
  • Zoology (1107)