You are here

A comparative analysis of different DNA extraction methods for fish tissues

Nucleic acids extraction is the initial stage of molecular genetic research. The effectiveness of using a certain method of DNA extraction is determined by the amount of extracted DNA, the degree of probe degradation, the time consuming and laboriousness of the procedure. When researching rare, endangered species and populations, special attention is paid to extracting DNA from sources that do not cause destruction or death of individual. The current study was aimed at comparison the effectiveness of the most common methods of genomic DNA isolation from fish tissues for further use in the polymerase chain reaction. Essentially three DNA extraction methods were employed and compared for the quality of isolated DNA ‒ the phenol-chloroform extraction method, the salt extraction method, and the sodium perchlorate extraction method. Samples of fins, liver and caver taken from sterlet individuals fixed in ethanol served as material for research. The study of the effect of DNA probe quality on PCR course was carried out using two types of PCR ‒ site-specific, amplifying the fragment of cytochrome-b gene, and multilocus ‒ ISSR-PCR with a trinucleotide primer (AGC)6T. A comparison of DNA extraction methods confirmed that all of them enable obtaining high-quality DNA from both fresh and archival fish tissue samples for site-specific amplification. The yield of nucleic acids using different fish tissues (fins, liver and caver) is not the same. Therefore, when it is necessary to obtain the maximum amount of DNA, it is advisable to use the salt extraction method. In case of ISSR-PCR, different degrees of DNA purification affected the course of amplification. Additional purification by the method of sorption on Silica allows removing possible PCR inhibitors and obtaining clear spectra of electrophoretic separation of amplification products, regardless of primary DNA quality.

Key words: DNA extraction methods, sterlet tissues, site-specific PCR, multilocus PCR.

 

  1. Aljanabi, S. M., Martinez, I. (1997). Universal and rapid salt-extraction of high quality genomic DNA for PCR-based techniques. Nucleic Acids Res., Vol. 25, no. 22, pp. 4692–4693.
  2. Amos, B., Hoelzel, A. R. (1991). Longterm preservation of whale skin for DNA analysis. Rep. int. Whal. Commn. (special issue), no. 13, pp. 99–103.
  3. Appleyard, Sh.F., Maher, S., Pogonoski, J.J., Bent, S.L., Chua, X-Y., McGrath, F. (2021). Assessing DNA for fish identifications from reference collections: the good, bad and ugly shed light on formalin fixation and sequencing approaches. Fish biology, Vol. 98, no.5, pp. 1421‒1432.
  4. Barbosa, C., Nogueira, S., Gadanho, M., Chaves, S. (2016). DNA extraction: finding the most suitable method. Molecular Microbial Diagnostic Methods: Pathways to Implementation for the Food and Water Industries. Chapter 7. Elsevier Inc., pp. 135–154.
  5. Boom, R., Sol, C., Weel, J., Goudsmit, J., Wertheim-van Dillen, P. (1999). Improved Silica-Guanidiniumthiocyanate DNA Isolation Procedure Based on Selective Binding of Bovine Alpha-Casein to Silica Particles. J. Clin Microbiol., Vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 615– 619. DOI:10.1128/jcm.37.3.615-619.1999.
  6. Brescia, P. (2012). Micro-Volume Purity Assessment of nucleic acids using A260/A280 ratio and spectral scanning. Application Note: protein and nucleic acid quantifcation. AN060112_12, Rev. 06/04/12. BioTek Instruments, Inc., Winooski, VT. Retrieved from http://www.biotek.com.
  7. Bruyn, M. D., Parenti, L. R., Carvalho, G. R. (2011). Successful extraction of DNA from archived alcohol-fixed white-eye fish specimens using an ancient DNA protocol. J. Fish Biol., Vol. 78, pp. 2074– 2079.
  8. Chowdhury, M. M., Rahman, A. S.M.S., Nahar, L., Rahman, M., Al Reza, H., Ahmed, M. S. (2016). Efficiency of different DNA extraction metods for fish tissues: A comparative analysis. IOSR Journal of Pharmacy & Biologocal Science, Vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 11‒15. DOI:10.9790/3008-1103041115.
  9. Dwiyitno Hoffman, S., Parmentier, K., Van Keer, C. (2018). Method Comparison of DNA Isolation and Quantification for Fish and Seafood Authenticity Determination. Squalen Bull. of Mar. and Fish. Postharvest and Biotech., Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 115‒124.
  10. Fang, S., Wan, Q., Fujihara, N. (2002). Formalin removal from archival tissue by critical point drying. Biotechnology, Vol. 33, pp. 604‒611.
  11. Hilz, H., Wiegers, U., Adamietz, P. (1975). Stimulation of proteinase K action by denaturing agents: application to the isolation of nucleic acids and the degradation of 'masked' proteins. FEBS Journal, Vol. 56, no. 1. pp. 103‒108. DOI:10. 1111/j.1432- 1033.1975.tb02211.x.
  12. Kumar, R., Singh, P. J., Nagpure N. S., Kushwaha, B., Srivastava, S. K., Lakra, W. S. (2007). A non-invasive technique for rapid extraction of DNA from fish scales. Ind. J. Exp. Biol., Vol. 45, pp. 992‒997.
  13. LGC. (2018). DNA Quantification: Comparison of UV Spectrophotometry and PicoGreen Analysis. Available at:https://www.lgcgroup.com/LGCGroup/media/PDFs/services/Extraction/DNAQuan....
  14. Muhammad, H., Iqbal, Z., Iqbal, M. U., Younas, T., Bashir, Q. (2016). An efficient method for DNA isolation from fish fin. Pak. J. Agri. Sci., Vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 843‒850. DOI:10.21162/PAKJAS/16.3998.
  15. Sambrook, J., Russell D. W. (2001). Molecular cloning: A laboratory manual (3rd Ed.). Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, New York. 1626 p.
  16. Silva, P. C., Malabarba, M-C., Vari R., Malabarba L. (2019). Comparison and optimization for DNA extraction of archived fish specimens. MethodX, Vol.6, pp.1433‒1442. DOI:10.1016/j. mex.2019.06.001.
  17. Wilcockson, J. (1973). The Use of Sodium Perchlorate in Deproteinization During the Preparation of Nucleic Acids. Biochem. J., Vol. 135, pp. 559–561.
AttachmentSize
PDF icon dyman_1_2023.pdf1.85 MB