Comparison of DNA extraction protocols to detect Mycobacterium bovis in bovine tissue by PCR

Authors

  • Cássia Yumi Ikuta Universidade de São Paulo
  • Daniella Carvalho Ribeiro Oliveira Universidade de São Paulo
  • Gisele Oliveira de Souza Universidade de São Paulo
  • Antonio Francisco de Souza Filho Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia
  • José Henrique de Hildebrand Grisi-Filho Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia
  • Marcos Bryan Heinemann Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia
  • José Soares Ferreira Neto Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5433/1679-0359.2016v37n5Supl2p3709

Keywords:

DNA extraction, Bovine tissue, Bovine tuberculosis, Mycobacterium bovis, PCR.

Abstract

The current scenario of international beef trading has increased the pressure for better and faster diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis. Although traditional culture remains the gold standard method to confirm Mycobacterium bovis infection, it is exceedingly time consuming, and demands viable mycobacteria. Molecular methods overcome the flaws of the bacteriological methods with faster detection and identification. However, mycobacterial features like a complex cell wall and pathogen–host interaction make the molecular detection a challenge. Three protocols for DNA extraction (A, B and C) from bovine tissues were tested to verify the most suitable technique for routine diagnostic assessment of their specificity and sensitivity. Thirty culture-positive and thirty culture-negative granulomatous lesions were included in the trial. From each sample, three tissue suspensions at different dilutions (10-1, 10-2 and 10-3) were prepared and submitted to DNA extraction. PCR procedures targeting IS6110 were performed, employing two volumes of DNA: 5 µL of all three dilutions, and 2.5 µL of the 10-1 dilution. Protocol A was able to detect members of the M. tuberculosis complex in most samples. The sensitivity of the test decreased with increase in tissue-suspension dilution. Although Protocol A presented the highest sensitivity followed by C and B, it showed the lowest specificity, which can be due to a failure in primary isolation caused by the lack of viable organisms or incubation time. Regardless classical bacteriological methods are still recommended by OIE, after evaluating the sensitivity of DNA extraction protocols and PCR procedures, we conclude that the best strategy for M. bovis detection is to follow Protocol A on concentrated tissue suspensions.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biographies

Cássia Yumi Ikuta, Universidade de São Paulo

Pesquisador, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade de São Paulo, USP, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Daniella Carvalho Ribeiro Oliveira, Universidade de São Paulo

Pesquisador, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade de São Paulo, USP, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Gisele Oliveira de Souza, Universidade de São Paulo

Pesquisador, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade de São Paulo, USP, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Antonio Francisco de Souza Filho, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia

Discente, Curso de Doutorado do Epidemiologia Experimental aplicada às Zoonoses. Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, USP, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

José Henrique de Hildebrand Grisi-Filho, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia

Prof., Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, USP, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Marcos Bryan Heinemann, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia

Prof., Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, USP, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

José Soares Ferreira Neto, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia

Prof., Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, USP, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Downloads

Published

2016-11-09

How to Cite

Ikuta, C. Y., Oliveira, D. C. R., Souza, G. O. de, Souza Filho, A. F. de, Grisi-Filho, J. H. de H., Heinemann, M. B., & Ferreira Neto, J. S. (2016). Comparison of DNA extraction protocols to detect Mycobacterium bovis in bovine tissue by PCR. Semina: Ciências Agrárias, 37(5Supl2), 3709–3718. https://doi.org/10.5433/1679-0359.2016v37n5Supl2p3709

Issue

Section

Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)

<< < 1 2 3 4 5 > >>