This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Smith, K. Articles by Clarke, S. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Smith, K. Articles by Clarke, S. C.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, June 2003, p. 2440-2443, Vol. 41, No. 6
0095-1137/03/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.41.6.2440-2443.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Comparison of Commercial DNA Extraction Kits for Extraction of Bacterial Genomic DNA from Whole-Blood Samples

Scottish Meningococcus and Pneumococcus Reference Laboratory, Stobhill Hospital,¹ Faculty of Biomedical and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom²

Received 26 September 2002/ Returned for modification 25 November 2002/ Accepted 27 February 2003

The demand for molecular diagnostic tests in medical microbiology has highlighted the need for efficient methods of DNA extraction. In addition, it is preferable for these methods to be automated. An example of such a requirement is for the confirmation of meningococcal disease where rapid, sensitive, and specific procedures are required for public health management purposes. Previous studies have shown that whole blood is the preferred method for the isolation of bacterial DNA in meningococcal disease, and in this study, we compare five commercially available kits for the extraction of bacterial genomic DNA from whole-blood samples. These include kits in a 96-well binding plate, 96-well filter plate, and metallic bead formats. The method for all five kits is described, and the sensitivity, specificity, ease of automation, and overall efficiency are determined.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Loens, K., Bergs, K., Ursi, D., Goossens, H., Ieven, M. (2007). Evaluation of NucliSens easyMAG for Automated Nucleic Acid Extraction from Various Clinical Specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45: 421-425 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Wilson, D., Yen-Lieberman, B., Reischl, U., Warshawsky, I., Procop, G. W. (2004). Comparison of Five Methods for Extraction of Legionella pneumophila from Respiratory Specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 42: 5913-5916 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Coyne, S. R., Craw, P. D., Norwood, D. A., Ulrich, M. P. (2004). Comparative Analysis of the Schleicher and Schuell IsoCode Stix DNA Isolation Device and the Qiagen QIAamp DNA Mini Kit. J. Clin. Microbiol. 42: 4859-4862 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Smith, K., Diggle, M. A., Clarke, S. C. (2004). Automation of a fluorescence-based multiplex PCR for the laboratory confirmation of common bacterial pathogens. J Med Microbiol 53: 115-117 [Abstract] [Full Text]