A comparison of Lyse-It to other cellular sample preparation, bacterial lysing, and DNA fragmentation technologies

dc.contributor.authorSantaus, Tonya M.
dc.contributor.authorLi, Shan
dc.contributor.authorSaha, Lahari
dc.contributor.authorChen, Wilbur H.
dc.contributor.authorBhagat, Siya
dc.contributor.authorStine, O. Colin
dc.contributor.authorGeddes, Chris
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-02T15:04:29Z
dc.date.available2019-10-02T15:04:29Z
dc.date.issued2019-07-23
dc.description.abstractThe ability for safe and rapid pathogenic sample transportation and subsequent detection is an increasing challenge throughout the world. Herein, we describe and use bead-beating, vortex, sonication, 903 protein saver cards, and Lyse-It methods, aiming to inactivate Grampositive and -negative bacteria with subsequent genome DNA (quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction) qPCR detection. The basic concepts behind the four chosen technologies is their versatility, cost, and ease of use in developed and underdeveloped countries. The four methods target the testing of bacterial resilience, cellular extraction from general and complex media and subsequent DNA extraction for qPCR detection and amplification. These results demonstrate that conventional high temperature heating, 903 protein saver cards, and Lyse-It are all viable options for inactivating bacterial growth for safe shipping. Additionally, Lyse-It was found to be particularly useful as this technology can inactivate bacteria, extract cells from 903 protein saver cards, lyse bacterial cells, and additionally keep genomic DNA viable for qPCR detection.en
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work is supported by the UMBCUMB Cholera joint training grant and the National Institutes of Health UMBC Graduate Training Chemistry Biology Interface Fellowship (T32GM066706-15). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.en
dc.format.extent16 pagesen
dc.genreJournal Articlesen
dc.identifierdoi:10.13016/m2fpco-xxjw
dc.identifier.citationSantaus TM, Li S, Saha L, Chen WH, Bhagat S, Stine OC, et al. (2019) A comparison of Lyse-It to other cellular sample preparation, bacterial lysing, and DNA fragmentation technologies. PLoS ONE 14(7): e0220102. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220102en
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220102
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11603/14959
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherPLOSen
dc.relation.isAvailableAtThe University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC)
dc.relation.ispartofUMBC Chemistry & Biochemistry Department Collection
dc.relation.ispartofUMBC Faculty Collection
dc.relation.ispartofUMBC Student Collection
dc.relation.ispartofUMBC Institute of Fluorescence (IoF)
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)*
dc.rightsThis item is likely protected under Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright Law. Unless on a Creative Commons license, for uses protected by Copyright Law, contact the copyright holder or the author.
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.subjectVibrio choleraeen
dc.subjectListeria monocytogenesen
dc.subjectDNA extractionen
dc.subjectMicrowave radiationen
dc.subjectProtein extractionen
dc.subjectSonicationen
dc.subjectStaphylococcus aureusen
dc.subjectBacterial pathogensen
dc.titleA comparison of Lyse-It to other cellular sample preparation, bacterial lysing, and DNA fragmentation technologiesen
dc.typeTexten

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
A comparison of Lyse.pdf
Size:
2.35 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
2.56 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: