Plant Molecular Biology Reporter

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 69–86

Comparative Analysis of Different DNA Extraction Protocols: A Fast, Universal Maxi-Preparation of High Quality Plant DNA for Genetic Evaluation and Phylogenetic Studies

  • U.M. Csaikl
  • H. Bastian
  • R. Brettschneider
  • S. Gauch
  • A. Meir
  • M. Schauerte
  • F. Scholz
  • C. Sperisen
  • B. Vornam
  • B. Ziegenhagen
Article

DOI: 10.1023/A:1007428009556

Cite this article as:
Csaikl, U., Bastian, H., Brettschneider, R. et al. Plant Molecular Biology Reporter (1998) 16: 69. doi:10.1023/A:1007428009556

Abstract

Four DNA extraction protocols were compared for ability to produce DNA from the leaves or needles of several species: oak, elm, pine, fir, poplar and maize (fresh materials) and rhododendron (silica dried or frozen material). With the exception of maize and poplar, the species are known to be difficult for DNA extraction. Two protocols represented classical procedures for lysis and purification, and the other two were a combination of classical lysis followed by anion exchange chromatography. The DNA obtained from all procedures was quantified and tested by PCR and Southern hybridisation.Test results indicated superiority of one of the four protocols; a combination of CTAB lysis followed by anion exchange chromatography which enabled DNA extraction from all seven species. A second protocol also produced DNA from leaves or needles of all species investigated and was well suited for PCR applications but not Southern hybridisations. The remaining protocols produced DNA from some but not all species tested.

Abbreviations: CTAB, hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide; EtOH, Ethanol; TBE, tris-borate-EDTA.

cpDNADNA extractionfingerprintingforest treesM13 fingerprintingmethodPCRrDNARFLPrhododendronplant

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • U.M. Csaikl
    • 1
  • H. Bastian
    • 2
  • R. Brettschneider
    • 3
  • S. Gauch
    • 2
  • A. Meir
    • 2
  • M. Schauerte
    • 4
  • F. Scholz
    • 4
  • C. Sperisen
    • 5
  • B. Vornam
    • 6
  • B. Ziegenhagen
    • 4
  1. 1.Austrian Research Centre SeibersdorfSeibersdorfAustria
  2. 2.QIAGEN GmbHHildenGermany
  3. 3.Centre for Applied Plant Molecular Biology, AMPIIInstitute of General BotanyHamburgGermany
  4. 4.Federal Research Centre for Forestry and Forest ProductsInstitute for Forest GeneticsGrosshansdorfGermany
  5. 5.Snow and Landscape ResearchSwiss Federal Institute for ForestBirmensdorfSwitzerland
  6. 6.Institute for Forest Genetics and Plant BreedingUniversity of GöttingenGöttingenGermany