Quick Fungal DNA Extraction  v1

protocols.io ◽  
2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Taranto
Keyword(s):  
Dna Extraction ◽  
Fungal Dna ◽  
Fungal Dna Extraction

scholarly journals A Quick and Safe Method for Fungal DNA Extraction

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 108-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Myoung-Hwan Chi ◽  
Sook-Young Park ◽  
Yong-Hwan Lee
Keyword(s):  
Dna Extraction ◽  
Safe Method ◽  
Fungal Dna ◽  
Fungal Dna Extraction

scholarly journals Assessment of fecal DNA extraction protocols for metagenomic studies

GigaScience ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fangming Yang ◽  
Jihua Sun ◽  
Huainian Luo ◽  
Huahui Ren ◽  
Hongcheng Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dna Extraction ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Metagenomic Sequencing ◽  
Human Gut ◽  
Shotgun Metagenomics ◽  
Fecal Samples ◽  
Bead Size ◽  
Standardized Protocol ◽  
Fungal Dna ◽  
Fungal Dna Extraction

Abstract Background Shotgun metagenomic sequencing has improved our understanding of the human gut microbiota. Various DNA extraction methods have been compared to find protocols that robustly and most accurately reflect the original microbial community structures. However, these recommendations can be further refined by considering the time and cost demands in dealing with samples from very large human cohorts. Additionally, fungal DNA extraction performance has so far been little investigated. Results We compared 6 DNA extraction protocols, MagPure Fast Stool DNA KF Kit B, Macherey Nagel™ NucleoSpin™®Soil kit, Zymo Research Quick-DNA™ Fecal/Soil Microbe kit, MOBIO DNeasy PowerSoil kit, the manual non-commercial protocol MetaHIT, and the recently published protocol Q using 1 microbial mock community (MMC) (containing 8 bacterial and 2 fungal strains) and fecal samples. All samples were manually extracted and subjected to shotgun metagenomics sequencing. Extracting DNA revealed high reproducibility within all 6 protocols, but microbial extraction efficiencies varied. The MMC results demonstrated that bead size was a determining factor for fungal and bacterial DNA yields. In human fecal samples, the MagPure bacterial extraction performed as well as the standardized protocol Q but was faster and more cost-effective. Extraction using the PowerSoil protocol resulted in a significantly higher ratio of gram-negative to gram-positive bacteria than other protocols, which might contribute to reported gut microbial differences between healthy adults. Conclusions We emphasize the importance of bead size selection for bacterial and fungal DNA extraction. More importantly, the performance of the novel protocol MP matched that of the recommended standardized protocol Q but consumed less time, was more cost-effective, and is recommended for further large-scale human gut metagenomic studies.

Comparison of the efficiency of 5 methods for fungal DNA extraction from crop debris and evaluation of its suitability for the amplification of Fusarium graminearum by PCR

2016 ◽  
Vol 82 ◽  
pp. 7-9
Author(s):  
Cecilia A. Mourelos ◽  
Ismael Malbrán ◽  
Diego Megual Goméz ◽  
Pedro A. Balatti ◽  
Pablo D. Ghiringhelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dna Extraction ◽  
Fusarium Graminearum ◽  
Fungal Dna ◽  
Fungal Dna Extraction

scholarly journals Introduction of a bead beating step improves fungal DNA extraction from selected patient specimens

2020 ◽  
Vol 310 (6) ◽  
pp. 151443
Author(s):  
Sebastian Scharf ◽  
Anna Bartels ◽  
Mustafa Kondakci ◽  
Klaus Pfeffer ◽  
Birgit Henrich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dna Extraction ◽  
Bead Beating ◽  
Fungal Dna ◽  
Fungal Dna Extraction

Fungal DNA extraction for Nanopore sequencing v1

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eri Ogiso-Tanaka ◽  
Hiyori Itagaki ◽  
Muneyuki Ohmae ◽  
Tsuyoshi hosoya ◽  
Kentaro Hosaka
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
High Molecular Weight ◽  
Dna Extraction ◽  
Nanopore Sequencing ◽  
High Molecular Weight Dna ◽  
Fungal Dna ◽  
Fungal Dna Extraction

This protocol is intended for extraction of high molecular weight DNA from fungal samples.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document