28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      BUCCAL CELLS SUBMITTED TO THREE DIFFERENT STORAGE CONDITIONS BEFORE DNA EXTRACTION

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This study evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively the effect of the storage time of samples before the application of the cell lysis solution (CLS) for extracting DNA from buccal cells (BC). BC from the upper and lower gutter region were collected from 5 volunteers using special cytobrushes (Gentra), totaling 3 collections for each individual. In the control group (n=10), CLS was applied soon after BC collection. In the other two groups, samples were stored at room temperature (n=10) or at 4°C (n=10). After CLS application, DNA was extracted according to the manufacturer 's instructions (Puregene DNA Buccal Cell Kit; Gentra Systems, Inc.). The DNA obtained was evaluated by two calibrated blind examiners using spectrophotometry and analysis of DNA bands (0.8% agarose gel electrophoresis). The obtained data were submitted to one-way ANOVA. The means and standard deviations for DNA extracted under immediate, room temperature and cooling temperature conditions were 3.5 ± 0.7, 3.0 ± 0.6 and 4.1 ± 1.8 μg, respectively (p=0.385). No significant differences were found in relation to the amount of DNA for the different storage conditions. However, in the visual analysis of the DNA bands, no trace of DNA degradation was detected when CSL was applied soon after DNA collection, while DNA bands with degradation could be observed in the other groups. Within the limitations of the study, it may be concluded that CLS should be applied soon after DNA collection in order to obtain high-quality DNA from BC.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Collection of genomic DNA from adults in epidemiological studies by buccal cytobrush and mouthwash.

          Blood samples are an excellent source of large amounts of genomic DNA. However, alternative sources are often needed in epidemiological studies because of difficulties in obtaining blood samples. This report evaluates the buccal cytobrush and alcohol-containing mouthwash protocols for collecting DNA by mail. Several DNA extraction techniques are also evaluated. The study was conducted in two phases. In phase 1, we compared cytobrush and mouthwash samples collected by mail in two different epidemiological studies: (a) cytobrush samples (n = 120) from a United States case-control study of breast cancer; and (b) mouthwash samples (n = 40) from a prospective cohort of male United States farmers. Findings from phase 1 were confirmed in phase 2, where we randomized cytobrush (n = 28) and mouthwash (n = 25) samples among participants in the breast cancer study to directly compare both collection methods. The median human DNA yield determined by hybridization with a human DNA probe from phenol-chloroform extracts was 1.0 and 1.6 microg/2 brushes for phases 1 and 2, respectively, and 27.5 and 16.6 microg/mouthwash sample for phases 1 and 2, respectively. Most (94-100%) mouthwash extracts contained high molecular weight DNA (>23 kb), in contrast to 55-61% of the brush extracts. PCR success rates for amplification of beta-globin gene fragments (268, 536, and 989 bp) were similar for cytobrush and mouthwash phenol-chloroform extracts (range, 94.4-100%). Also, we obtained high success rates in determining the number of CAG repeats in the androgen receptor gene, characterizing tetranucleotide microsatellites in six gene loci, and screening for mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes in a subset of phenol-chloroform DNA extracts. Relative to DNA extracted by phenol-chloroform from cytobrush samples, DNA extracted by NaOH had lower molecular weight, decreased PCR success rates for most assays performed, and unreliably high spectrophotometer readings for DNA yields. In conclusion, although DNA isolated from either mouthwash or cytobrush samples collected by mail from adults is adequate for a wide range of PCR-based assays, a single mouthwash sample provides substantially larger amounts and higher molecular weight DNA than two cytobrush samples.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Buccal cell DNA yield, quality, and collection costs: comparison of methods for large-scale studies.

            There is considerable interest in noninvasive and cost-effective methods for obtaining DNA in large-scale studies. In this randomized crossover study of 22 participants, we compared the DNA yield, quality, and associated costs of buccal cell DNA collected using cytobrushes (three brushes per collection) and swish (i.e., mouthwash) in self-administered procedures. There was a nonstatistically significant higher yield from the mouthwash compared with cytobrush collections (15.8 microg versus 12.0 microg, respectively; P = 0.53). PCR reactions that required short (0.3 kb) or intermediate (1.1 kb) DNA fragments were 100% successful for DNA from brush and mouthwash, whereas PCRs for reactions that required long fragments (7.8 kb) failed for all of the participants from cytobrush DNA and were 81% successful for DNA from the mouthwash source. The brush collections provided sufficient DNA for an estimated 150-225 PCR reactions requiring short and intermediate DNA fragments. The estimated per person costs for buccal brush DNA collections in large studies were less then half (8.50 dollars) those for the mouthwash method (18 dollars). In addition, we tested whether cytobrush instructions to rub cheeks before collection or collect cells only in the morning increased DNA yield and whether repeat brushings of the same cheek reduced DNA yield. These variations resulted in no significant differences in DNA yields. We conclude that the collection of DNA with cytobrushes using simple instructions is cost effective in large-scale studies, and yields sufficient quantity and quality of DNA for genotyping.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Quality assessment of buccal versus blood genomic DNA using the Affymetrix 500 K GeneChip

              Background With the advent of genome-wide genotyping, the utility of stored buccal brushes for DNA extraction and genotyping has been questioned. We sought to describe the genomic DNA yield and concordance between stored buccal brushes and blood samples from the same individuals in the context of Affymetrix 500 K Human GeneChip genotyping. Results Buccal cytobrushes stored for ~7 years at -80°C prior to extraction yielded sufficient double stranded DNA (dsDNA) to be successfully genotyped on the Affymetrix ~262 K NspI chip, with yields between 536 and 1047 ng dsDNA. Using the BRLMM algorithm, genotyping call rates for blood samples averaged 98.4%, and for buccal samples averaged 97.8%. Matched blood samples exhibited 99.2% concordance, while matched blood and buccal samples exhibited 98.8% concordance. Conclusion Buccal cytobrushes stored long-term result in sufficient dsDNA concentrations to achieve high genotyping call rates and concordance with stored blood samples in the context of Affymetrix 500 K SNP genotyping. Thus, given high-quality collection and storage protocols, it is possible to use stored buccal cytobrush samples for genome-wide association studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Appl Oral Sci
                J Appl Oral Sci
                Journal of Applied Oral Science
                Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru da Universidade de São Paulo (Bauru )
                1678-7757
                1678-7765
                April 2009
                April 2009
                : 17
                : 2
                : 113-115
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Undergraduate student, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil
                [2 ]DDS, Graduate student, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil
                [3 ]DDS, MSc, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil
                [4 ]DDS, MSc, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Semiology and Clinic, Federal University of Pelotas, RS, Brazil
                [5 ]DDS, MSc, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Operative Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, RS, Brazil
                Author notes
                Corresponding address: Prof. Dr. Flávio Fernando Demarco - Universidade Federal de Pelotas - Faculdade de Odontologia - Rua Gonçalves Chaves, no. 457 - 96015-560 - Pelotas - RS - Brasil - Phone: +55-53-3225-6741- Fax: +55-53-3225-5581- e-mail: flavio.demarco@ 123456pq.cnpq.br
                Article
                S1678-77572009000200008
                10.1590/S1678-77572009000200008
                4327587
                19274396
                62617a2e-7ab3-4a6e-be42-1c1f16a83108

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 27 March 2008
                : 31 August 2008
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 11, Pages: 3
                Categories
                Original Article

                dna,oral mucosa,temperature,time
                dna, oral mucosa, temperature, time

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                23
                0
                18
                1
                Smart Citations
                23
                0
                18
                1
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content202

                Cited by5

                Most referenced authors180