Suppr超能文献

不同保存时间和保存方法对采采蝇 DNA 浓度和纯度的影响评价。

Evaluation of different storage times and preservation methods on phlebotomine sand fly DNA concentration and purity.

机构信息

Department of Immunology, Aggeu Magalhães Institute, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz), Recife, Brazil.

Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Bari, Valenzano, Italy.

出版信息

Parasit Vectors. 2020 Aug 6;13(1):399. doi: 10.1186/s13071-020-04270-4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Different methods have been used to preserve phlebotomine sand flies for research purposes, including for taxonomic studies and detection of Leishmania spp. Here, we evaluated the effect of various preservation methods at different storage times on phlebotomine sand fly DNA concentration and purity.

METHODS

Field-collected phlebotomine sand flies were individually stored in 70% ethanol (G1) and 95% ethanol (G2) at room temperature, 70% ethanol (G3) and 95% ethanol (G4) at 8 °C or frozen dry (i.e. no preservation solution) at - 20 °C (G5). DNA concentration and purity were assessed at various storage times (T1, ≤ 12 h; T2, 3 months; T3, 6 months; T4, 9 months; and T5, 12 months). Fragments of the cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 (cox1) and cacophony (CAC) genes of phlebotomine sand flies were also amplified.

RESULTS

Mean DNA concentration (P = 0.178) and 260/280 purity ratios (P = 0.584) did not vary significantly among various preservation methods and storage times. Within each group, DNA concentration varied in G1 (Kruskal-Wallis H-test, P = 0.009) for T3 vs T4 (Dunn's post-hoc, P < 0.05), and in G2 (Kruskal-Wallis H-test, P = 0.004) for T1 vs T2 and T1 vs T4 (Dunn's post-hoc, P < 0.05). For 260/280 purity ratios, the only statistically significant difference was found for G5 (Kruskal-Wallis H-test, P = 0.020) between T1 vs T4 (Dunn's post-hoc test, P < 0.05). The cox1 and CAC genes were successfully amplified, regardless of the preservation method and storage time; except in one sample from G2 at T1, for which the CAC gene failed to amplify.

CONCLUSIONS

The preservation methods and storage times herein evaluated did not affect the concentration and purity of DNA samples obtained from field-collected phlebotomine sand flies, for up to 12 months. Furthermore, these preservation methods did not interfere with PCR amplification of CAC and cox1 genes, being suitable for molecular analyses under the conditions studied herein.

摘要

背景

为了研究目的,已经使用了不同的方法来保存白蛉,包括分类学研究和检测利什曼原虫。在这里,我们评估了不同保存方法在不同储存时间对白蛉沙蝇 DNA 浓度和纯度的影响。

方法

采集的白蛉沙蝇分别存放在室温下的 70%乙醇(G1)和 95%乙醇(G2)、8°C 下的 70%乙醇(G3)和 95%乙醇(G4)或 -20°C 下的冻干(即无保存液)(G5)中。在不同的储存时间(T1,≤12 小时;T2,3 个月;T3,6 个月;T4,9 个月;T5,12 个月)评估 DNA 浓度和纯度。还扩增了白蛉沙蝇细胞色素 c 氧化酶亚基 1(cox1)和 cacophony(CAC)基因的片段。

结果

不同保存方法和储存时间之间,DNA 浓度的平均值(P=0.178)和 260/280 纯度比值(P=0.584)均无显著差异。在每个组中,G1 中的 DNA 浓度变化(Kruskal-Wallis H 检验,P=0.009)在 T3 与 T4 之间(Dunn's 事后检验,P<0.05),G2 中的 DNA 浓度变化(Kruskal-Wallis H 检验,P=0.004)在 T1 与 T2 和 T1 与 T4 之间(Dunn's 事后检验,P<0.05)。对于 260/280 纯度比值,唯一具有统计学意义的差异是 G5(Kruskal-Wallis H 检验,P=0.020)在 T1 与 T4 之间(Dunn's 事后检验,P<0.05)。cox1 和 CAC 基因无论保存方法和储存时间如何,都成功扩增;除了 G2 中一个 T1 时间点的样本中 CAC 基因未能扩增。

结论

在所评估的保存方法和储存时间内,采集的白蛉沙蝇 DNA 样本的浓度和纯度不受影响,最长可达 12 个月。此外,这些保存方法不干扰 CAC 和 cox1 基因的 PCR 扩增,适用于本文研究条件下的分子分析。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2e3d/7412822/73e68dcaccfb/13071_2020_4270_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验