JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Coyne, S. R.
Right arrow Articles by Ulrich, M. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Coyne, S. R.
Right arrow Articles by Ulrich, M. P.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, October 2004, p. 4859-4862, Vol. 42, No. 10
0095-1137/04/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.42.10.4859-4862.2004

Comparative Analysis of the Schleicher and Schuell IsoCode Stix DNA Isolation Device and the Qiagen QIAamp DNA Mini Kit

Susan R. Coyne,1 Philip D. Craw,1 David A. Norwood,1 and Melanie P. Ulrich2*

Diagnostic Systems Division, United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick,1 Goldbelt Raven, LLC, Frederick, Maryland2

Received 22 April 2004/ Returned for modification 7 June 2004/ Accepted 19 June 2004


   ABSTRACT
Top
 Abstract
Text
 References
 
Efficient, rapid, and reproducible procedures for isolating high-quality DNA before PCR gene amplification are essential for the diagnostic and molecular identification of pathogenic bacteria. This study evaluated the Qiagen QIAamp DNA Mini Kit and the Schleicher and Schuell IsoCode Stix DNA isolation device for isolating nucleic acid. Buffer, serum, and whole-blood samples were spiked with Bacillus anthracis Sterne vegetative cells and Yersinia pestis, while water was spiked with B. anthracis Sterne spores. Although minimal variations in limit of detection occurred among matrices, both the IsoCode Stix extraction method and the Qiagen procedure have comparable detection limits.


   TEXT
Top
 Abstract
 Text
References
 
Advances in molecular biology have led to the use of real-time PCR as an efficient and reproducible method for detecting bacterial and viral pathogens. PCR-based assays, designed to target specific nucleic acid sequences rather than relying on cultural and biochemical properties, offer high sensitivity and specificity (11, 14). These factors can be extremely important when rapid and accurate identification of pathogenic bacteria is required. Time-efficient and reliable methods for isolating high-quality nucleic acid are essential for the success of PCR-based technologies. The low concentration of DNA from pathogenic agents present in typical samples makes such applications necessary (3, 18, 22). In addition, a method with a flexible protocol applicable to numerous matrix types that is efficient at removing inhibitory substances found in clinical material that interfere with PCR amplification of the intended target is imperative (3, 12, 13, 15, 18, 20, 25, 26). Further, the proposed sample processing method should facilitate reproducibility, production of DNA for long-term storage, and minimal cross-contamination (10, 18, 19).

Various factors affect DNA recovery, including the degree of cellular lysis, binding of DNA to particulate material, and degradation or shearing of DNA (16). An optimal sample processing method should efficiently lyse resistant bacterial cell walls (gram positive) without indirectly damaging target DNA purified from more fragile (gram-negative) bacterial species (19). In addition, many current methods typically require multiple steps or specialized equipment, rendering them impractical for use with large sample numbers (1, 6, 14).

(These data were presented at the 2003 General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology [S. R. Coyne, P. D. Craw, and M. P. Ulrich, Abstr. 103rd Gen. Meet. Am. Soc. Microbiol., abstr. C-195, 2003].)

This study was designed to compare the Qiagen QIAamp DNA Mini Kit and the Schleicher & Schuell IsoCode Stix DNA isolation device. Real-time PCR assays were used to measure the relative effectiveness of the Qiagen kit and the IsoCode Stix device in purifying and recovering bacterial DNA from clinical material including buffer, serum, and whole-blood samples. Gram-positive (Bacillus anthracis Sterne vegetative cells and spores) and gram-negative (Yersinia pestis) bacteria were tested to compare the two methods for DNA recovery and their compatibility with real-time PCR detection.

B. anthracis Sterne and Y. pestis CO92 were obtained from collections maintained at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases.

Tenfold serial dilutions of B. anthracis Sterne vegetative cells and Y. pestis CO92, beginning with approximately 106 CFU/ml, were prepared in phosphate-buffered saline (Sigma, St. Louis, Mo.), commercially available human serum (Pel-Freeze Clinical Systems, Brown Deer, Wis.), and human whole blood drawn into 5-ml EDTA collection tubes (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, N.J.). B. anthracis Sterne spores were prepared in molecular-biology-grade (MBG) water (Eppendorf, Westbury, N.Y.). Diluted bacterial samples were then enumerated by plating in duplicate on sheep blood agar medium (Remel, Inc., Lenexa, Kans.) to obtain actual concentrations for extraction.

For sonication, triplicate aliquots (100 µl) of B. anthracis Sterne spores diluted in MBG water were placed in an I-Core tube (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, Calif.) containing 30 to 40 mg of 106-µm and finer glass beads (Sigma). Samples were then placed in the lysis module of the Cepheid Microsonicator and sonicated for 15 s at the 70% power setting. Target DNA was purified using either the Qiagen QIAamp DNA Mini Kit (Valencia, Calif.) or the IsoCode Stix DNA Isolation Device (Schleicher & Schuell, Keene, N.H.).

DNA extraction using the Qiagen kit was carried out according to the manufacturer's instructions with minor modifications, as follows. Samples were prepared in triplicate by combining 100 µl of diluted bacteria with 80 µl of phosphate-buffered saline. This sample mixture was combined with 200 µl of buffer AL and 20 µl of proteinase K (17.8 mg/ml), followed by incubation at 55°C for 60 min. After incubation, 210 µl of ethanol (96 to 100%) was added, samples were mixed by vortexing, loaded onto a QIAamp spin column, and washed according to the manufacturer's instructions. Preheated (70°C) AE buffer (100 µl) was added to the column and incubated for 5 min at 70°C, and DNA was eluted by centrifugation at 6,000 x g for 1 min.

Nucleic acid purification using the IsoCode Stix procedure followed the manufacturer's instructions with few modifications. Each sample was prepared in triplicate, 10-µl aliquots were spotted onto the four triangular tips of the IsoCode Stix device (Schleicher & Schuell), dried for 15 min, and triangles were detached into sterile microcentrifuge tubes. MBG water (1 ml) was added to each tube, triangles were washed by pulse vortexing three times for a total of 5 s, and the wash water was removed. Sterile water was added (100 µl), ensuring complete submersion of the DNA-containing triangles, and nucleic acid was eluted by heating the mixture at 95°C for 15 min in an Eppendorf Thermomixer with an agitation setting of 6. After a brief centrifugation, eluates were removed and placed in sterile microcentrifuge tubes.

All nucleic acid was analyzed by real-time PCR with the Cepheid Smart Cycler. Reaction mixtures consisted of 20 µl of PCR mix and 5 µl of DNA template. DNA isolated from B. anthracis Sterne was analyzed with a pX01-specific assay (accession number M22589.1), and DNA purified from Y. pestis CO92 was analyzed with a pPCP1-specific assay (accession number X92856). The limit of detection (LOD) was determined when the PCRs were positive for each of the triplicate samples. In addition, an internal positive-control assay, developed at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, was run on whole-blood and serum samples to monitor the presence of PCR inhibitors remaining in purified DNA samples (L. J. Hartman, S. R. Coyne, and D. A. Norwood, submitted for publication). Standard curves with purified nucleic acid data were constructed on the Smart Cycler to calculate the concentration of DNA obtained in experimental samples.

The Qiagen and IsoCode Stix comparison for B. anthracis Sterne vegetative cells in buffer, serum, and whole blood is seen in Table 1. Table 2 depicts the detection capability of the Qiagen and IsoCode Stix methods for Y. pestis CO92. The detection limits and recovery efficiency for B. anthracis Sterne spores in water determined with Qiagen and IsoCode Stix, with and without the incorporation of microsonication to enhance cellular lysis, are stated below. The LOD was greater than 20,000 CFU/sample (>2.0 x 105 CFU/ml) with the use of the Qiagen extraction without sonication, while the IsoCode Stix LOD was 8,000 CFU/sample (2.0 x 105 CFU/ml) with a recovery of 105.11 fg of DNA. When microsonication was used along with the sample processing methods tested in this study, the LOD was 2.0 x 103 CFU/ml for both Qiagen (200 CFU/sample) and IsoCode Stix (80 CFU/sample) and yielded DNA concentrations of 271 fg (Qiagen) and 39.09 fg (IsoCode Stix). PCR inhibitors were not detected in any of the purified DNA from serum and whole-blood samples tested in this study.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1. Extraction of B. anthracis Sterne vegetative cellsd

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 2. Extraction of Y. pestis CO92d

 
Although the sensitivity of a DNA extraction kit is important, many additional parameters for the clinical microbiology laboratory must be considered, including time required, typical sample types, cost per test, and the need for additional reagents (3, 14). In addition, a protocol that does not include specialized equipment or knowledge supports the routine isolation of DNA from a large series of samples (1). The diversity of clinical matrices (i.e., serum and whole blood) increases the complexity of samples to be processed for PCR detection (19). Thus, the method of template preparation is crucial to provide high-quality DNA lacking inhibitory factors (14, 20). In this study, both the IsoCode Stix and Qiagen methods effectively removed PCR inhibitors from serum and whole-blood samples.

The processing time varied between the IsoCode Stix procedure, which required approximately 45 min to process 12 samples, and the Qiagen kit, which needed approximately 90 min for 12 samples. In addition to the reduced time for purifying DNA, the IsoCode Stix procedure included only one reagent (MBG water), reducing the number of manipulations needed to obtain pure nucleic acid, improving the ease of sample handling, and minimizing the risk of cross-contamination. A unique feature of the IsoCode Stix is their impregnation with chelators and denaturants reported to retard bacterial and viral growth; inhibit nuclease activity, thus minimizing nucleic acid degradation; and release template DNA from organisms during processing (7, 8, 9, 13, 18, 21). Impregnated membrane-based technology has provided enhanced detection sensitivities compared to those with conventional preparations (18). This type of device also allows for storage of samples (applied to the card) and shipment at ambient temperatures, increasing its applicability to field studies (10).

In this study, PCR analysis on samples extracted using the IsoCode Stix DNA isolation device for template preparation provided LODs comparable to those of the Qiagen QIAamp DNA Mini Kit despite the reduced sample volume (40-µl maximum). However, based on quantification data generated by standard curves, the Qiagen procedure produced higher concentrations of DNA. In addition, sonicating the B. anthracis spores increased the LOD by 2 logs. The reason(s) for the decreased DNA recoveries with IsoCode Stix is unknown, but it may be a result of template DNA loss through degradation or trapping of nucleic acid in the paper matrix, which was previously shown (4). Bacterial cell DNA yields are reported with concentrations ranging from 0.5 to 5.36 fg of DNA per bacterial cell, depending on the species being analyzed (i.e., gram positive versus gram negative) (2, 5, 17, 23, 27). Based on an assumed average value of 9 fg of DNA per cell (24), the percent recovery for B. anthracis vegetative cells at the LOD with Qiagen was 2.8% for buffer, 5.8% for serum, and 0.8% for whole blood. In contrast, IsoCode Stix yielded lower percentages with 2.4% for buffer, 2.7% for serum, and 0.2% for whole blood at the LOD. Unlike B. anthracis, and as expected for gram-negative bacteria, increased percentages for both kits were obtained when analyzing extraction efficiencies for Y. pestis. The Qiagen kit yielded 38.9, 37.4, and 88.9% for buffer, serum, and whole blood, respectively, at the LOD. When IsoCode was used to purify nucleic acid from Y. pestis, the percent recovery at the LOD was 19.9% for buffer, 2.8% for serum, and 0.9% for whole blood. Sonicated B. anthracis spores revealed the same trend, with Qiagen providing a higher percent recovery (15.1%) than that of IsoCode Stix (5.4%) at the LOD. For unsonicated spores, IsoCode Stix yielded a value comparable to that for cells extracted in whole blood at 0.2%.

When combined with ease of handling, the IsoCode Stix device was sufficiently sensitive for PCR detection of the samples studied in this investigation. Preparing DNA from the IsoCode paper was rapid, simple, and reproducible, providing a more efficient method for template preparation.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Candi Jones for the preliminary development and testing of the IsoCode Stix procedure, as well as Ricky Ulrich, Deanna Christensen, and Katheryn Kenyon for critically reviewing the manuscript.

The research described herein was sponsored by research plan 04-4-8I-016.

Opinions, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by the U.S. Army.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: USAMRIID, Diagnostic Systems Division, 1425 Porter St., Fort Detrick, MD 21702-5011. Phone: (301) 619-6352. Fax: (301) 619-2492. E-mail: Melanie.Ulrich{at}amedd.army.mil. Back


   REFERENCES
Top
 Abstract
 Text
 References
 

  1. Boom, R., C. J. A. Sol, M. M. M. Salimans, C. L. Jansen, P. M. E. Wertheim-van Dillen, and J. van der Noordaa. 1990. Rapid and simple method for purification of nucleic acids. J. Clin. Microbiol. 28:495-503.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Erb, R. W., and I. Wagner-Döbler. 1993. Detection of polychlorinated biphenyl degradation genes in polluted sediments by direct DNA extraction and polymerase chain reaction. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 59:4065-4073.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Fahle, G. A., and S. H. Fischer. 2000. Comparison of six commercial DNA extraction kits for recovery of cytomegalovirus DNA from spiked human specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 38:3860-3863.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Farnert, A., A. P. Arez, A. T. Correia, A. Bjorkman, G. Snounou, and V. do Rosario. 1999. Sampling and storage of blood and the detection of malaria parasites by polymerase chain reaction. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 93:50-53.[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Fuhrman, J. A., S. H. Lee, Y. Masuchi, A. A. Davis, and R. M. Wilcox. 1994. Characterization of marine prokaryotic communities via DNA and RNA. Microb. Ecol. 28:133-145.
  6. Griffiths, R. I., A. S. Whiteley, A. G. O'Donnell, and M. J. Bailey. 2000. Rapid method for coextraction of DNA and RNA from natural environments for analysis of ribosomal DNA- and rRNA-based microbial community composition. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66:5488-5491.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Harty, L. C., M. Garcia-Closas, N. Rothman, Y. A. Reid, M. A. Tucker, and P. Hartge. 2000. Collection of buccal cell DNA using treated cards. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 9:501-506.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Harvey, M. A., T. King, and R. Burghoff. 1995. Impregnated 903 blood collection paper: a tool for DNA preparation from dried blood spots for PCR amplification. Clin. Chem. 41:S108.
  9. Harvey, M. A., T. King, A. Wenzel, and R. Burghoff. 1996. Isolation of nucleic acids for amplification from IsoCode: an impregnated sample collection paper. Clin. Chem. 42:S203.
  10. Henning, L., I. Felger, and H. P. Beck. 1999. Rapid DNA extraction for molecular epidemiological studies of malaria. Acta Trop. 72:149-155.[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Higgins, J. A., J. Ezzell, B. J. Hinnebusch, M. Shipley, E. A. Henchal, and M. S. Ibrahim. 1998. 5' nuclease PCR assay to detect Yersinia pestis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 36:2284-2288.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Higgins, J. A., M. C. Jenkins, D. R. Shelton, R. Fayer, and J. S. Karns. 2001. Rapid extraction of DNA from Escherichia coli and Cryptosporidium parvum for use in PCR. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67:5321-5324.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Lampel, K. A., P. A. Orlandi, and L. Kornegay. 2000. Improved template preparation for PCR-based assays for detection of food-borne bacterial pathogens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66:4539-4542.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Li, Y., and A. Mustapha. 2002. Evaluation of four template preparation methods for polymerase chain reaction-based detection of Salmonella in ground beef and chicken. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 35:508-512.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. McOrist, A. L., M. Jackson, and A. R. Bird. 2002. A comparison of five methods for extraction of bacterial DNA from human faecal samples. J. Microbiol. Methods 50:131-139.[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Miller, D. N., J. E. Bryant, E. L. Madsen, and W. C. Ghiorse. 1999. Evaluation and optimization of DNA extraction and purification procedures for soil and sediment samples. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65:4715-4724.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Moré, M. I., J. B. Herrick, M. C. Silva, W. C. Ghiorse, and E. L. Madsen. 1994. Quantitative cell lysis of indigenous microorganisms and rapid extraction of microbial DNA from sediment. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 60:1572-1580.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Orlandi, P. A., and K. A. Lampel. 2000. Extraction-free, filter-based template preparation for rapid and sensitive PCR detection of pathogenic parasitic protozoa. J. Clin. Microbiol. 38:2271-2277.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Rantakokko-Jalava, K., and J. Jalava. 2002. Optimal DNA isolation method for detection of bacteria in clinical specimens by broad-range PCR. J. Clin. Microbiol. 40:4211-4217.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Read, S. J. 2001. Recovery efficiencies of nucleic acid extraction kits as measured by quantitative LightCycler PCR. Mol. Pathol. 54:86-90.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Roy, R., and L. R. Middendorf. 1997. Infrared fluorescent detection of D1S80 alleles from blood and body fluid collected on IsoCode devices. BioTechniques 23:942-945.[Medline]
  22. Smith, K., M. A. Diggle, and S. C. Clarke. 2003. Comparison of commercial DNA extraction kits for extraction of bacterial genomic DNA from whole-blood samples. J. Clin. Microbiol. 41:2440-2443.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Steffan, R. J., J. Goksoyr, A. K. Bej, and R. M. Atlas. 1988. Recovery of DNA from soils and sediments. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 54:2908-2915.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Tsai, Y., and B. H. Olson. 1991. Rapid method for direct extraction of DNA from soil and sediments. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 57:1070-1074.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Wilson, I. J. 1997. Inhibition and facilitation of nucleic acid amplification. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 63:3741-3751.[Medline]
  26. Zhong, K. J. Y., C. J. Salas, R. Shafer, A. Gubanov, R. A. Gasser, A. J. Magill, J. R. Forney, and K. C. Kain. 2001. Comparison of IsoCode STIX and FTA Gene Guard collection matrices as whole-blood storage and processing devices for diagnosis of malaria by PCR. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39:1195-1196.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Zhou, J., M. A. Bruns, and J. M. Tiedje. 1996. DNA recovery from soils of diverse composition. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 62:316-322.[Abstract]

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, October 2004, p. 4859-4862, Vol. 42, No. 10
0095-1137/04/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.42.10.4859-4862.2004




This article has been cited by other articles:


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Coyne, S. R.
Right arrow Articles by Ulrich, M. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Coyne, S. R.
Right arrow Articles by Ulrich, M. P.

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS