Development of pretreatment protocol for DNA extraction from biofilm attached to biologic activated carbon (BAC) granules
The biologic activated carbon (BAC) process is widely used in drinking water treatments. A comprehensive molecular analysis of the microbial community structure provides very helpful data to improve the reactor performance. However, the bottleneck of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) extraction from BAC attached biofilm has to be solved since the conventional procedure was unsuccessful due to firm biomass attachment and adsorption capacity of the BAC granules. In this study, five pretreatments were compared, and adding skim milk followed by ultrasonic vibration was proven to be the optimal choice. This protocol was further tested using the vertical BAC samples from the full-scale biofilter of Pinghu Water Plant. The results showed the DNAyielded a range of 40 μg·g−1 BAC (dry weight) to over 100 μg·g−1 BAC (dry weight), which were consistent with the biomass distribution. All results suggested that the final protocol could produce qualified genomic DNA as a template from the BAC filter for downstream molecular biology researches.
Keywordsbacterial DNA extraction biological activated carbon (BAC) biofilm water treatment pretreatment protocol
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 5.Cheng L, Gao N Y, Cai Y L. Influence of the disinfectants on the biological stability of the drinking water. Journal of Xi’an University of Architecture & Technology (Natural Science Edition), 2007, 39(2): 263–267Google Scholar
- 7.Lin W, Weber A. Aerobic biological activated carbon (BAC) treatment of a phenolic wastewater. Environment and Progress, 1992, 11(2): 145–154Google Scholar
- 8.Chung Y C, Lin Y Y, Tseng C P. Operational characteristics of effective removal of H2S and NH3 waste gases by activated carbon biofilter. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 2004, 54(4): 450–458Google Scholar
- 17.Liu X L, Liu W J. Microbial community structure in bio-ceramics and biological activated carbon analyzed by PCR-SSCP technique. Huan Jing Ke Xue, 2007, 28(4): 924–928 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
- 20.Frostegard A, Courtois S, Ramisse V, Clerc S, Bernillon D, Le Gall F, Jeannin P, Nesme X, Simonet P. Quantification of bias related to the extraction of DNA directly from soils. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 1999, 65(12): 5409–5420Google Scholar
- 21.Volossiouk T, Robb E J, Nazar R N. Direct DNA extraction for PCR-mediated assays of soil organisms. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 1995, 61(11): 3972–3976Google Scholar
- 22.García-Pedrajas M D, Bainbridge B W, Heale J B, Perez-Artes E, Jimenez-Diaz R M. A simple PCR-based methods for the detection of the chickpea-wilt pathogen Fusarium oxysporum f.sp.ciceria in artificial and natural soils. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 1999, 105(3): 251–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Zhou J, BrunsM A, Tiedje J M. DNA recovery from soils of diverse composition. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 1996, 62(2): 316–322Google Scholar
- 30.Yu X, Zhang X, Wang Z. Biomass determination using Lipid-P method for drinking water biological treatment. Water and Wastewater Engineering, 2002, 28(5): 1–5 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
- 31.Wang J Z, Summers R S, Miltner R J. Biofiltration Performance: Part 1, Relationship to Biomass. Journal AWWA, 1995, 87(12): 55–63Google Scholar
- 32.Ogram A V, Mathot M L, Harsh J B, Boyle J, Pettigrew C A. Effects of DNA polymer length on its adsorption to soils. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 1994, 60(2): 393–396Google Scholar