scholarly journals Comparison of commercially-available RNA extraction methods for effective bacterial RNA isolation from milk spiked samples

2010 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 0-0 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula García-Nogales ◽  
Alicia Serrano ◽  
Sonia Secchi ◽  
Serafín Gutiérrez ◽  
Anna Arís
Keyword(s):  
Rna Extraction ◽  
Rna Isolation ◽  
Extraction Methods ◽  
Bacterial Rna ◽  
Rna Extraction Methods

scholarly journals Modified Spin Column-Based RNA Extraction Methods of Staphylococcus aureus using PureLink® RNA Mini Kit and Basic Laboratory Instrument

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-80
Author(s):  
Muhammad Taufiq Hidayat ◽  
Endry Nugroho Prasetyo
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Rna Extraction ◽  
Extraction Process ◽  
Extraction Methods ◽  
Important Process ◽  
Sensitive Material ◽  
Bacterial Rna ◽  
Spin Column ◽  
Rna Extraction Methods ◽  
Transcriptomic Level

RNA extraction is an important process before gene expression assessment at the transcriptomic level. RNA is a sensitive material to environmental factors such as temperature and contaminants, so the RNA extraction process generally requires sophisticated and expensive laboratory instruments. In this study, we extract RNA from Staphylococcus aureus bacteria using the PureLink® RNA Mini Kit. The instruments used in this study are basic instruments such as a hand homogenizer and non-thermal centrifuge. The results of RNA extraction were visualized using agarose gel electrophoresis. These results indicate that bacterial RNA extraction can be performed using the PureLink® RNA Mini Kit even with inexpensive basic laboratory instruments.

scholarly journals Big data from small tissues: extraction of high-quality RNA for different plant tissue types during oilseed Brassica spp. seed development for RNA-Sequencing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Siles ◽  
Peter Eastmond ◽  
Smita Kurup
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Rna Sequencing ◽  
Seed Development ◽  
Developmental Stages ◽  
Rna Extraction ◽  
Rna Isolation ◽  
Extraction Methods ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Gene Expression Analyses ◽  
Rna Extraction Methods

AbstractObtaining high-quality RNA for gene expression analyses from different seed tissues is challenging due to the presence of various contaminants, such as polyphenols, polysaccharides and lipids which interfere with RNA extraction methods. At present, the available protocols for extracting RNA from seeds require high amounts of tissue and are mainly focused on extracting RNA from whole seeds. However, extracting RNA at the tissue level enables more detailed studies regarding tissue specific transcriptome during development. Seeds from heart stage embryo to mature developmental stages of Brassica napus and B. oleracea were sampled for isolation of the embryo, endosperm and seed coat tissues. Ovules and gynoecia wall tissue were also collected at the pre-fertilization stage. After testing several RNA extraction methods, E.Z.N.A. Plant RNA Kit and Picopure RNA Isolation kit extraction methods with some modifications, as well as the use of PVPP for seed coats and endosperms at green stages, resulted in high RNA concentrations with clear 28S and 18S bands and high RIN values. Here, we present efficient and reliable RNA extraction methods for different genotypes of Brassica spp for different tissue types during seed development. The high-quality RNA obtained by using these methodologies is suitable for RNA-Sequencing and gene expression analyses.

scholarly journals Significant compartment‐specific impact of different RNA extraction methods and PCR assays on the sensitivity of Hepatitis E virus detection

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Behrendt ◽  
Birgit Bremer ◽  
Daniel Todt ◽  
Eike Steinmann ◽  
Michael Peter Manns ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatitis E Virus ◽  
Rna Extraction ◽  
Virus Detection ◽  
Hepatitis E ◽  
Extraction Methods ◽  
Rna Extraction Methods ◽  
Pcr Assays ◽  
Specific Impact

scholarly journals Comparison of RNA Extraction Methods for Molecular Analysis of Oral Cytology

2016 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 108-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alves Mônica Ghislaine Oliveira ◽  
Mario Pérez-Sayáns ◽  
Maria-Elena Padín-Iruegas ◽  
Maria Dolores Reboiras-López ◽  
José Manuel Suarez-Peñaranda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Analysis ◽  
Rna Extraction ◽  
Extraction Methods ◽  
Rna Extraction Methods ◽  
Oral Cytology

scholarly journals Optimal RNA Extraction Methods and Development of Synthetic Clones for Seven Strawberry Viruses

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 170-178
Author(s):  
Sun-Jung Kwon ◽  
Ju-Yeon Yoon ◽  
In-Sook Cho ◽  
Bong-Nam Chung
Keyword(s):  
Rna Extraction ◽  
Extraction Methods ◽  
Rna Extraction Methods

scholarly journals Detection of Viable Cryptosporidium parvum in Soil by Reverse Transcription–Real-Time PCR Targetinghsp70mRNA

2011 ◽  
Vol 77 (18) ◽  
pp. 6476-6485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhanbei Liang ◽  
Ann Keeley
Keyword(s):  
Cryptosporidium Parvum ◽  
Reverse Transcription ◽  
Rna Binding ◽  
Direct Detection ◽  
Rna Extraction ◽  
Milk Powder ◽  
Extraction Methods ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Total Rna ◽  
Rna Extraction Methods

ABSTRACTExtraction of high-quality mRNA fromCryptosporidium parvumis a key step in PCR detection of viable oocysts in environmental samples. Current methods for monitoring oocysts are limited to water samples; therefore, the goal of this study was to develop a rapid and sensitive procedure forCryptosporidiumdetection in soil samples. The efficiencies of five RNA extraction methods were compared (mRNA extraction with the Dynabeads mRNA Direct kit after chemical and physical sample treatments, and total RNA extraction methods using the FastRNA Pro Soil-Direct, PowerSoil Total RNA, E.Z.N.A. soil RNA, and Norgen soil RNA purification kits) for the direct detection ofCryptosporidiumwith oocyst-spiked sandy, loamy, and clay soils by using TaqMan reverse transcription-PCR. The study also evaluated the presence of inhibitors by synthesis and incorporation of an internal positive control (IPC) RNA into reverse transcription amplifications, used different facilitators (bovine serum albumin, yeast RNA, salmon DNA, skim milk powder, casein, polyvinylpyrrolidone, sodium hexametaphosphate, andSalmonella entericaserovar Typhi) to mitigate RNA binding on soil components, and applied various treatments (β-mercaptoethanol and bead beating) to inactivate RNase and ensure the complete lysis of oocysts. The results of spiking studies showed thatSalmonellacells most efficiently relieved binding of RNA. With the inclusion ofSalmonelladuring extraction, the most efficient mRNA method was Dynabeads, with a detection limit of 6 × 102oocysts g−1of sandy soil. The most efficient total RNA method was PowerSoil, with detection limits of 1.5 × 102, 1.5 × 103, and 1.5 × 104C. parvumoocysts g−1soil for sandy, loamy, and clay samples, respectively.

Rapid Virus Detection Procedure for Molecular Tracing of Shellfish Associated with Disease Outbreaks

2007 ◽  
Vol 70 (4) ◽  
pp. 967-974 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANA MARIA de RODA HUSMAN ◽  
FROUKJE LODDER-VERSCHOOR ◽  
HAROLD H. J. L. van den BERG ◽  
FRANÇOISE S. LE GUYADER ◽  
HILDE van PELT ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Extraction Method ◽  
Rna Extraction ◽  
Virus Detection ◽  
Disease Outbreaks ◽  
Extraction Methods ◽  
Virus Rna ◽  
Pathogenic Viruses ◽  
Rna Extraction Methods ◽  
Digestive Glands ◽  
Outbreak Situation

Detection of pathogenic viruses in oysters implicated in gastroenteritis outbreaks is often hampered by time-consuming, specialist virus extraction methods. Five virus RNA extraction methods were evaluated with respect to performance characteristics and sensitivity on artificially contaminated oyster digestive glands. The two most promising procedures were further evaluated on bioaccumulated and naturally contaminated oysters. The most efficient method was used to trace the source in an outbreak situation. Out of five RNA extraction protocols, PEG precipitation and the RNeasy Kit performed best with norovirus genogroup III–spiked digestive glands. Analyzing 24-h bioaccumulated oysters revealed a slightly better sensitivity with PEG precipitation, but the RNeasy Kit was less prone to concentrate inhibitors. The latter procedure demonstrated the presence of human noroviruses in naturally contaminated oysters and oysters implicated in an outbreak. In this outbreak, in four out of nine individually analyzed digestive glands, norovirus was detected. In one of the oysters and in one of the fecal samples of the clinical cases, identical norovirus strains were detected. A standard and rapid virus extraction method using the RNeasy Kit appeared to be most useful in tracing shellfish as the source in gastroenteritis outbreaks, and to be able to make effective and timely risk management decisions.

scholarly journals Comparison of Six RNA Extraction Methods for the Detection of Classical Swine Fever Virus by Real-Time and Conventional Reverse Transcription–PCR

2005 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 574-578 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ming Y. Deng ◽  
He Wang ◽  
Gordon B. Ward ◽  
Tammy R. Beckham ◽  
Thomas S. McKenna
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Classical Swine Fever Virus ◽  
Rna Extraction ◽  
Classical Swine Fever ◽  
Extraction Methods ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Total Rna ◽  
Reverse Transcription Pcr ◽  
Rna Extraction Methods ◽  
Positive Results

Six RNA extraction methods, i.e., RNAqueous kit, Micro-to-midi total RNA purification system, NucleoSpin RNA II, GenElute mammalian total RNA kit, RNeasy mini kit, and TRIzol LS reagent, were evaluated on blood and 7 tissues from pig infected with classical swine fever virus (CSFV). Each of the 6 extraction methods yielded sufficient RNA for positive results in a real-time reverse transcription–PCR (RT-PCR) for CSFV, and all RNA, except the one extracted from blood by TRIzol LS reagent, yielded positive results in both a conventional RT-PCR for CSFV and a conventional RT-PCR for an endogenous gene encoding β-actin. The RNA extracted from blood by TRIzol LS reagent became positive in both conventional RT-PCR assays when it was diluted to 1:2, 1:4, or up to 1:64 in nuclease-free water. It is concluded that all 6 methods are more or less useful for the detection of CSFV by real-time and conventional RT-PCR in swine blood and tissues. However, some of the 6 reagents offer certain advantages not common to all 6 extraction procedures. For example, RNA extracted by the TRIzol LS reagent constantly had the highest yield; that by the RNAqueous kit had the highest A260/A280 ratio for almost all samples; and that by the NucleoSpin RNA II and the GenElute mammalian total RNA kit was most likely to be free of contaminations with genomic DNA.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document