Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp 1541–1548 | Cite as

The peril of PCR inhibitors in environmental samples: the case of Didymosphenia geminata

  • Leandro R. Jones
  • Noelia M. Uyua
  • Julieta M. Manrique
Commentary

Abstract

Since the introduction of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) biodiversity study has been significantly influenced by the chance of generating unprecedented amounts of molecular data. Although it is a robust technique, those applications requiring high sensitivity and reproducibility, that is PCR detection and quantitative PCR, can be negatively affected by PCR inhibition. This is particularly challenging for diverse kinds of samples included the environmental ones, which usually contain complex mixtures of a variety of inhibitory substances. The problem of PCR inhibition can be overcome, or ameliorated, by implementing adequate protocols of nucleic acids purification, internal controls and modern analytical approaches focused on PCR kinetics. Herein, we remark these procedures and describe the general techniques that can be used to optimize DNA extraction protocols for PCR applications. In addition, we show that PCR inhibition might have negative consequences in molecular studies of Didymosphenia geminata, an invasive microalga that have recently developed massive blooms in temperate regions worldwide, and provide general guidelines for dealing with this problem.

Keywords

Didymosphenia Rock snot Molecular detection PCR 

Notes

Acknowledgments

LRJ and JMM are members of the scientific career of the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET, Argentina). NMU is a CONICET doctoral fellow.

References

  1. Aldrich J, Cullis CA (1993) RAPD analysis in flax: optimization of yield and reproducibility using KlenTaq 1 DNA polymerase, Chelex 100, and gel purification of genomic DNA. Plant Mol Biol Report 11:128–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allard A, Girones R, Juto P, Wadell G (1990) Polymerase chain reaction for detection of adenoviruses in stool samples. J Clin Microbiol 28:2659–2667PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bar T, Kubista M, Tichopad A (2012) Validation of kinetics similarity in qPCR. Nucleic Acids Res 40:1395–1406PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker-Andre M, Hahlbrock K (1989) Absolute mRNA quantification using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). A novel approach by a PCR aided transcript titration assay (PATTY). Nucleic Acids Res 17:9437–9446PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bothwell ML, Kilroy C, Taylor BW, Ellison ET, James DA, Gillis C-A et al (2012) Iron is not responsible for Didymosphenia geminata bloom formation in phosphorus-poor rivers. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 69:1723–1727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cary CS, Coyne KJ, Rueckert A, Wood SA, Kelly S, Gemmill CEC et al (2014) Dvelopment and valiation of a quantitative PCR assay for the early detection and monitoring of the invasive diatom Didymosphenia geminata. Harmful Algae 36:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Golemba MD, Parreño V, Jones LR (2008) Simple procedures to obtain exogenous internal controls for use in RT-PCR detection of bovine pestiviruses. Mol Cell Probes 22:212–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Green HC, Field KG (2012) Sensitive detection of sample interference in environmental qPCR. Water Res 46:3251–3260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gretz MR (2008) The stalks of didymo. In: Bothwell ML, Spaulding SA (eds) Proceedings of the 2007 international workshop on Didymosphenia geminata, vol 2795Google Scholar
  10. Hoorfar J, Malorny B, Abdulmawjood A, Cook N, Wagner M, Fach P (2004) Practical considerations in design of internal amplification controls for diagnostic PCR assays. J Clin Microbiol 42:1863–1868PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jones LR, Zandomeni R, Weber EL (2001) Genetic typing of bovine viral diarrhea virus isolates from Argentina. Vet Microbiol 81:367–375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kelly SR (2009) The origin, genetic diversity and taxonomy of the invasive diatom Didymosphenia geminata (bacillariophyceae) in New Zealand, The University of WaikatoGoogle Scholar
  13. Kermarrec L, Ector L, Bouchez A, Rimet F, Hoffmann L (2011) A preliminary phylogenetic analysis of the Cymbellales based on 18S rDNA gene sequencing. Diatom Res 26:305–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuhajek J, Wood S (2013) Didymo phase 4: the influence of water chemistry and biofilm composition on Didymosphennia geminata establishment, Report No. 2347, Cawthron Institute, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  15. Manrique JM, Calvo AY, Jones LR (2012) Phylogenetic analysis of Ostreococcus virus sequences from the Patagonian Coast. Virus Genes 45:316–326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miller SA, Dykes DD, Polesky HF (1988) A simple salting out procedure for extracting DNA from human nucleated cells. Nucleic Acids Res 16:3Google Scholar
  17. Monteiro L, Bonnemaison D, Vekris A, Petry KG, Bonnet J, Viral R et al (1997) Complex Polysaccharides as PCR Inhibitors in Feces: Helicobacter pylori Model. J Clin Microbiol 35:995–998PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Pandey RN, Adams RP, Flournoy LE (1996) Inhibition of random amplified polymorphic DNAs (RAPDs) by plant polysaccharides. Plant Mol Biol Report 14:17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pontiroli A, Travis ER, Sweeney FP, Porter D, Gaze WH, Mason S et al (2011) Pathogen quantitation in complex matrices: a multi-operator comparison of DNA extraction methods with a novel assessment of PCR inhibition. PLoS One 6:e17916PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rutledge RG, Stewart D (2008) Critical evaluation of methods used to determine amplification efficiency refutes the exponential character of real-time PCR. BMC Mol Biol 9:96PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sambrook J, Russel DW (2001) Molecular cloning. A laboratory manual, 3rd edn. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Schrader C, Schielke A, Ellerbroek L, Johne R (2012) PCR inhibitors—occurrence, properties and removal. J Appl Microbiol 113:1014–1026PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sundareshwar PV, Upadhayay S, Abessa M, Honomichl S, Berdanier B, Spaulding SA et al (2011) Didymosphenia geminata: Algal blooms in oligotrophic streams and rivers. Geophys Res Lett 38:1–5Google Scholar
  24. Taylor BW, Bothwell ML (2014) The origin of invasive microorganisms matters for science, policy, and management: the case of Didymosphenia geminata. Bioscience 64:531–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Uyua NM, Manrique JM, Jones LR (2014) An optimized DNA extraction protocol for benthic Didymosphenia geminata. J Microbiol Methods 104C:12–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vilcek S, Herring AJ, Herring JA, Nettleton PF, Lowings JP, Paton DJ (1994) Pestiviruses isolated from pigs, cattle and sheep can be allocated into at least three genogroups using polymerase chain reaction and restriction endonuclease analysis. Arch Virol 136:309–323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Whitton BA, Ellwood NTW, Kawecka B (2009) Biology of the freshwater diatom Didymosphenia: a review. Hydrobiologia 630:1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wilson IG (1997) Inhibition and facilitation of nucleic acid amplification. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:3741–3751PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Xin Z, Velten JP, Oliver MJ, Burke JJ (2003) High-throughput DNA extraction method suitable for PCR. Biotechniques 34(820–4):826Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leandro R. Jones
    • 1
  • Noelia M. Uyua
    • 1
  • Julieta M. Manrique
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratorio de Virología y Genética Molecular, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales sede TrelewUniversidad Nacional de la Patagonia San Juan BoscoTrelewArgentina

Personalised recommendations