Evaluation of five protocols for DNA extraction from leaves of Malus sieversii, Vitis vinifera, and Armeniaca vulgaris

2014

Closed access Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.4238/2014.february.27.13
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Leaves of Malus sieversii, Vitis vinifera, and Armeniaca vulgaris contain substantial amounts of secondary metabolites, which limit the high-quality DNA extraction performance. In this study, five extraction protocols were compared for their ability to produce good quality DNA from fresh and dried (with silica gel) leaves of these species. The modified protocol of Dellaporta et al., using polyvinylpyrrolidone to bind the phenolic compounds and a high molar concentration of potassium acetate to inhibit co-precipitation of polysaccharides with DNA, produced the best DNA quality for all species tested. DNA extracted by this method had a 1.77-1.96 A260/280 nm ratio and successful amplification of the 18S ribosomal DNA gene. DNA concentrations of dried leaves were lower than those obtained from fresh leaves, which was likely due to aspects of the drying procedure. All five methods for grapevine produced DNA of obvious better quality from green canes compared to leaves, due to the relatively low content of secondary metabolites in the former. For grapevine and apricot, three methods can be equally used to obtain DNA of good quality: the Doyle and Doyle modified method using CTAB and high concentration of NaCl, the Jobes et al. modified method, and the sodium dodecyl sulfate mini preparation method of Edwards et al. The protocol of Jobes et al. using LiCl for RNA removal showed the best results for most of the M. sieversii samples examined.