SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.26 issue4Information system development of an alternative raingauge network in rural areas. Case state Anzoategui, VenezuelaHuman Capital Formation and Foreign Direct Investment: Is it a nonlinear relationship? author indexsubject indexsearch form
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO

Share


Acta universitaria

On-line version ISSN 2007-9621Print version ISSN 0188-6266

Abstract

RIOS-SANCHEZ, Efraín et al. Comparative analysis of different DNA extraction methods and their genotyping efficiency in Mexican population. Acta univ [online]. 2016, vol.26, n.4, pp.56-65. ISSN 2007-9621.  http://dx.doi.org/10.15174/au.2016.1078.

Genetic variability studies have presented inconsistencies between populations, mainly because methods of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) extraction and genotyping techniques show high variability between them, leading to an erroneous assignment of genotypes. The objective of this study is compare different techniques for DNA extraction and genotyping of polymorphisms. To perform this study, DNA from 10 blood samples corresponding to mestizo Mexicans was analyzed and purified by methods of phenol-chloroform-isoamyl alcohol (PCA), salting out gradient (SG), sucrose gradient (SCG), DNAzol ® method and DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit ®. GSTT1*0 and GSTM1*0 polymorphisms were genotyped by multiplex PCR, CYP1A1*2C by PCR-RFLP’s assay and AhR Arg554Lys by real-time PCR. Results shown that amount, purity and integrity of DNA were evaluated. Different methods results showed significant differences (p < 0.001). Molecular analyses showed that PCA method presents inhibitors for PCR reaction because it was not possible to amplify fragments in multiplex PCR and endpoint. Although, there was amplification in real time PCR. SG and SCG methods amplified all samples in three types of PCR and the results were concordant between them. While in PCR - RFLP analysis, samples extracted by DNAzol ® and DNeasy ® amplified only 80% of samples with no concordant results (50% for DNAzol ® and 80% for DNeasy ®). SG extraction methods and SCG showed higher DNA recovery, with optimal quality parameters for molecular analyses by PCR.

Keywords : DNA extraction; genotyping; SNP; polymorphisms; PCR; genetic variability; Mexico.

        · abstract in Spanish     · text in Spanish     · Spanish ( pdf )