A comparison of DNA extraction methods for high‐throughput DNA analyses

The inclusion of next‐generation sequencing technologies in population genetic and phylogenetic studies has elevated the need to balance time and cost of DNA extraction without compromising DNA quality. We tested eight extraction methods – ranging from low‐ to high‐throughput techniques – and eight phyla: Annelida, Arthropoda, Cnidaria, Chordata, Echinodermata, Mollusca, Ochrophyta and Porifera. We assessed DNA yield, purity, efficacy and cost of each method. Extraction efficacy was quantified using the proportion of successful polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of two molecular markers for metazoans (mitochondrial COI and nuclear histone 3) and one for Ochrophyta (mitochondrial nad6) at four time points – 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 years following extraction. DNA yield and purity were quantified using NanoDrop absorbance ratios. Cost was estimated in terms of time and material expense. Results show differences in DNA yield, purity and PCR success between extraction methods and that performance also varied by taxon. The traditional time‐intensive, low‐throughput CTAB phenol–chloroform extraction performed well across taxa, but other methods also performed well and provide the opportunity to reduce time spent at the bench and increase throughput.

[1]  Harvey J. Motulsky,et al.  Detecting outliers when fitting data with nonlinear regression – a new method based on robust nonlinear regression and the false discovery rate , 2006, BMC Bioinformatics.

[2]  Č. Vlček,et al.  Comparison of seven DNA extraction and amplification protocols in historical herbarium specimens of juncaceae , 2002, Plant Molecular Biology Reporter.

[3]  P. Karlovsky,et al.  Preparation and purification of DNA from insects for AFLP analysis , 1998, Insect molecular biology.

[4]  G. Edgecombe,et al.  Histone H3 and U2 snRNA DNA sequences and arthropod molecular evolution , 1998 .

[5]  Eric D. Crandall,et al.  Phylogeography unplugged: comparative surveys in the genomic era , 2014 .

[6]  J. McLachlan,et al.  Ancient DNA from lake sediments: Bridging the gap between paleoecology and genetics , 2011, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[7]  C. Lane,et al.  A MULTI‐GENE MOLECULAR INVESTIGATION OF THE KELP (LAMINARIALES, PHAEOPHYCEAE) SUPPORTS SUBSTANTIAL TAXONOMIC RE‐ORGANIZATION 1 , 2006 .

[8]  Sujeevan Ratnasingham,et al.  Critical factors for assembling a high volume of DNA barcodes , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[9]  D. Bolnick,et al.  Demystifying the RAD fad , 2014, Molecular ecology.

[10]  R. Vrijenhoek,et al.  DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. , 1994, Molecular marine biology and biotechnology.

[11]  B. Carstens,et al.  The evolution of phylogeographic data sets , 2015, Molecular ecology.

[12]  Mark J. Clement,et al.  Targeted Amplicon Sequencing (TAS): A Scalable Next-Gen Approach to Multilocus, Multitaxa Phylogenetics , 2011, Genome biology and evolution.

[13]  Jeremy R. deWaard,et al.  An inexpensive, automation-friendly protocol for recovering high-quality DNA , 2006 .

[14]  M. Dawson Natural experiments and meta‐analyses in comparative phylogeography , 2014 .

[15]  G. Saunders,et al.  On the utility of DNA barcoding for species differentiation among brown macroalgae (Phaeophyceae) including a novel extraction protocol , 2009 .

[16]  C. Lane,et al.  Molecular investigation reveals epi/endophytic extrageneric kelp (Laminariales, Phaeophyceae) gametophytes colonizing Lessoniopsis littoralis thalli , 2005 .

[17]  M. Dawson,et al.  Field preservation of marine invertebrate tissue for DNA analyses. , 1998, Molecular marine biology and biotechnology.

[18]  M. Dawson,et al.  The role of molecular genetics in sculpting the future of integrative biogeography , 2008 .

[19]  M. Alfaro,et al.  Massively parallel DNA sequencing: the new frontier in biogeography , 2013 .

[20]  S. Mousset,et al.  An efficient method to find potentially universal population genetic markers, applied to metazoans , 2010, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[21]  R. Swerdlow,et al.  DNA extraction procedures meaningfully influence qPCR-based mtDNA copy number determination. , 2009, Mitochondrion.

[22]  Troy J. Kieran,et al.  Impacts of degraded DNA on restriction enzyme associated DNA sequencing (RADSeq) , 2015, Molecular ecology resources.

[23]  M. Wingfield,et al.  DNA extraction techniques for DNA barcoding of minute gall‐inhabiting wasps , 2012, Molecular ecology resources.

[24]  P. Bustos,et al.  Genomic lineages of Rhizobium etli revealed by the extent of nucleotide polymorphisms and low recombination , 2011, BMC Evolutionary Biology.