Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Böcek Dokularından DNA İzolasyonu Yöntemlerinin Kalite, Verim ve Maliyet Açısından Karşılaştırılması

Year 2018, Volume: 44 Issue: 2, 135 - 148, 11.10.2018

Abstract

Günümüzde
moleküler biyoloji ve biyoinformatik alanındaki gelişmelere paralel olarak
metagenomik, biyoteknoloji, tüm genom dizilemesi, genom evrimi gibi alanlarda
çok sayıda araştırma yapılmaktadır. Böcek türleri ile yapılan çalışmalarda ilk
ve en önemli adım etkili bir DNA izolasyonu yönteminin kullanılmasıdır. Kitin
yapılı bir dış iskelete sahip olan böceklerin çoğunun küçük canlılar olması DNA
izolasyonunu zorlaştırmaktadır. Yapılan bu çalışma ile
Cephus pygmeus (Linnaeus, 1767) türüne ait bireylerden dokuz farklı
DNA izolasyon yöntemi ile total DNA izolasyonu gerçekleştirilmiştir. Elde
edilen DNA örnekleri verim, saflık, maliyet, zaman ve PCR başarısı kriterleri
altında değerlendirilmiştir. Maliyet ve kullanılan kimyasalların toksisitesi
göz önüne alındığında ise tuzla çöktürme yönteminin böcek dokularından DNA
izolasyonu için en uygun yöntem olduğu yorumlanmıştır.



 

References

  • Aljanabi SM, Martinez I (1997). Universal and rapid salt-extraction of high quality genomic DNA for PCR-based techniques. Nucleic acids research 25: 4692–4693.
  • Asghar U, Malik MF, Anwar F, Javed A, Raza A (2015). DNA Extraction from Insects by Using Different Techniques: A Review. Advances in Entomology 3: 132–138.
  • Biere A, Bennett AE (2013). Three-way interactions between plants, microbes and insects. Functional Ecology 27: 567–573.
  • Carlton JM, Adams JH, Silva JC, Bidwell SL, Lorenzi H, Caler E, Crabtree J, Angiuoli S V, Merino EF, Amedeo P (2008). Comparative genomics of the neglected human malaria parasite Plasmodium vivax. Nature 455: 757–763.
  • Carpenter JM, Carpenter JM, Wheeler WC, Wheeler WC (1999). Towards simultaneous analysis of morphological and molecular data in Hymenoptera. Zoologica: 251–260.
  • Chen H, Rangasamy M, Tan SY, Wang H, Siegfried BD (2010). Evaluation of five methods for total DNA extraction from western corn rootworm beetles. PLoS ONE 5: e11963.
  • Davey JL, Blaxter MW (2010). RADseq: Next-generation population genetics. Briefings in Functional Genomics 9: 416–423.
  • Van Dijk EL, Auger H, Jaszczyszyn Y, Thermes C (2014). Ten years of next-generation sequencing technology. Trends in Genetics 30: 418–426.
  • Furlong MJ (2015). Knowing your enemies: Integrating molecular and ecological methods to assess the impact of arthropod predators on crop pests. Insect Science 22: 6–19.
  • Gutiérrez-López R, Martínez-de la Puente J, Gangoso L, Soriguer RC, Figuerola J (2015). Comparison of manual and semi-automatic DNA extraction protocols for the barcoding characterization of hematophagous louse flies (Diptera: Hippoboscidae). Journal of Vector Ecology 40: 11–15.
  • Hebert PDN, Ratnasingham S, deWaard JR (2003). Barcoding animal life: cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 divergences among closely related species. Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society 270 Suppl: S96–S99.
  • Ji YJ, Zhang DX, He LJ (2003). Evolutionary conservation and versatility of a new set of primers for amplifying the ribosomal internal transcribed spacer regions in insects and other invertebrates. Molecular Ecology Notes 3: 581–585.
  • Juen A, Traugott M (2005). Detecting predation and scavenging by DNA gut-content analysis: A case study using a soil insect predator-prey system. Oecologia 142: 344–352.
  • Korkmaz EM, Budak M, Orgen SH, Bagda E, Gencer L, Ulgenturk S, Basibuyuk HH (2010). New records and a checklist of Cephidae (Hymenoptera: Insecta) of Turkey with a short biogeographical consideration. Turkish Journal of Zoology 34: 203–211.
  • Korkmaz EM, Lunt DH, Çıplak B, Değerli N, Başıbüyük HH (2014). The contribution of Anatolia to European phylogeography: the centre of origin of the meadow grasshopper, Chorthippus parallelus. Journal of biogeography 41: 1793–1805.
  • Kress WJ, García-Robledo C, Uriarte M, Erickson DL (2015). DNA barcodes for ecology, evolution, and conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 30: 25–35.
  • Mardis ER (2017). DNA sequencing technologies: 2006–2016. Nature Protocols 12: 213–218.
  • Misof B, Liu S, Meusemann K, Peters RS, Donath A et al. (2014). Phylogenomics resolves the timing and pattern of insect evolution. Science 346: 763–767.
  • Rosenfeld J, Foox J, DeSalle R (2015). Insect genome content phylogeny and functional annotation of core insect genomes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 97: 224–232.
  • Shanower TG (2008). History of biological control of wheat stem sawflies (Hymenoptera: Cephidae). In: Capinera J (Ed), Encyclopedia of Entomology, Springer, Netherlands, s. 1826–1829.
  • Simon C, Frati F, Beckenbach A, Crespi B, Liu H, Flook P (1994). Evolution, weighting, and phylogenetic utility of mitochondrial gene-sequences and a compilation of conserved polymerase chain-reaction primers. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 87: 651–701.
  • Truett GE, Heeger P, Mynatt RL, Truett AA, Walker JA, Warman ML (2000). Preparation of PCR-quality mouse genomic dna with hot sodium hydroxide and tris (HotSHOT). BioTechniques 29: 52–54.
  • Walsh PS, Metzger DA, Higuchi R (1991). Chelex 100 as a medium for simple extraction of DNA for PCR-based typing from forensic material. BioTechniques 10: 506–513.
  • Wingfield MJ, Klein H (2012). DNA extraction techniques for DNA barcoding of minute gall-inhabiting wasps. Molecular Ecology Resources 12: 109–115.

Comparison of DNA Isolation Methods From Insect Tissues in Terms of Quality, Yield and Cost

Year 2018, Volume: 44 Issue: 2, 135 - 148, 11.10.2018

Abstract

Today,
there are many studies conducted in the areas such as metagenomics,
biotechnology, whole genome sequencing, genome evolution, and so on parallel to
the developments in molecular biology and bioinformatics in molecular biology
and bioinformatics. The first and most important step in studies with insect
species is the use of an effective DNA isolation method. Small body and
external chitin skeleton of the insects cause difficulties in isolating the
insect DNAs. In this study, nine different DNA isolation methods were applied
to carry out total DNA isolation from the individuals belonging to the species Cephus pygmeus (Linnaeus, 1767). The
results were interpreted in terms of DNA yield, purity, cost, time and PCR
performance criteria. When the cost and the toxicity of the used chemicals are
taken into consideration, it is interpreted that the salting out method is the
most suitable method for DNA isolation from insect tissues. 

References

  • Aljanabi SM, Martinez I (1997). Universal and rapid salt-extraction of high quality genomic DNA for PCR-based techniques. Nucleic acids research 25: 4692–4693.
  • Asghar U, Malik MF, Anwar F, Javed A, Raza A (2015). DNA Extraction from Insects by Using Different Techniques: A Review. Advances in Entomology 3: 132–138.
  • Biere A, Bennett AE (2013). Three-way interactions between plants, microbes and insects. Functional Ecology 27: 567–573.
  • Carlton JM, Adams JH, Silva JC, Bidwell SL, Lorenzi H, Caler E, Crabtree J, Angiuoli S V, Merino EF, Amedeo P (2008). Comparative genomics of the neglected human malaria parasite Plasmodium vivax. Nature 455: 757–763.
  • Carpenter JM, Carpenter JM, Wheeler WC, Wheeler WC (1999). Towards simultaneous analysis of morphological and molecular data in Hymenoptera. Zoologica: 251–260.
  • Chen H, Rangasamy M, Tan SY, Wang H, Siegfried BD (2010). Evaluation of five methods for total DNA extraction from western corn rootworm beetles. PLoS ONE 5: e11963.
  • Davey JL, Blaxter MW (2010). RADseq: Next-generation population genetics. Briefings in Functional Genomics 9: 416–423.
  • Van Dijk EL, Auger H, Jaszczyszyn Y, Thermes C (2014). Ten years of next-generation sequencing technology. Trends in Genetics 30: 418–426.
  • Furlong MJ (2015). Knowing your enemies: Integrating molecular and ecological methods to assess the impact of arthropod predators on crop pests. Insect Science 22: 6–19.
  • Gutiérrez-López R, Martínez-de la Puente J, Gangoso L, Soriguer RC, Figuerola J (2015). Comparison of manual and semi-automatic DNA extraction protocols for the barcoding characterization of hematophagous louse flies (Diptera: Hippoboscidae). Journal of Vector Ecology 40: 11–15.
  • Hebert PDN, Ratnasingham S, deWaard JR (2003). Barcoding animal life: cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 divergences among closely related species. Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society 270 Suppl: S96–S99.
  • Ji YJ, Zhang DX, He LJ (2003). Evolutionary conservation and versatility of a new set of primers for amplifying the ribosomal internal transcribed spacer regions in insects and other invertebrates. Molecular Ecology Notes 3: 581–585.
  • Juen A, Traugott M (2005). Detecting predation and scavenging by DNA gut-content analysis: A case study using a soil insect predator-prey system. Oecologia 142: 344–352.
  • Korkmaz EM, Budak M, Orgen SH, Bagda E, Gencer L, Ulgenturk S, Basibuyuk HH (2010). New records and a checklist of Cephidae (Hymenoptera: Insecta) of Turkey with a short biogeographical consideration. Turkish Journal of Zoology 34: 203–211.
  • Korkmaz EM, Lunt DH, Çıplak B, Değerli N, Başıbüyük HH (2014). The contribution of Anatolia to European phylogeography: the centre of origin of the meadow grasshopper, Chorthippus parallelus. Journal of biogeography 41: 1793–1805.
  • Kress WJ, García-Robledo C, Uriarte M, Erickson DL (2015). DNA barcodes for ecology, evolution, and conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 30: 25–35.
  • Mardis ER (2017). DNA sequencing technologies: 2006–2016. Nature Protocols 12: 213–218.
  • Misof B, Liu S, Meusemann K, Peters RS, Donath A et al. (2014). Phylogenomics resolves the timing and pattern of insect evolution. Science 346: 763–767.
  • Rosenfeld J, Foox J, DeSalle R (2015). Insect genome content phylogeny and functional annotation of core insect genomes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 97: 224–232.
  • Shanower TG (2008). History of biological control of wheat stem sawflies (Hymenoptera: Cephidae). In: Capinera J (Ed), Encyclopedia of Entomology, Springer, Netherlands, s. 1826–1829.
  • Simon C, Frati F, Beckenbach A, Crespi B, Liu H, Flook P (1994). Evolution, weighting, and phylogenetic utility of mitochondrial gene-sequences and a compilation of conserved polymerase chain-reaction primers. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 87: 651–701.
  • Truett GE, Heeger P, Mynatt RL, Truett AA, Walker JA, Warman ML (2000). Preparation of PCR-quality mouse genomic dna with hot sodium hydroxide and tris (HotSHOT). BioTechniques 29: 52–54.
  • Walsh PS, Metzger DA, Higuchi R (1991). Chelex 100 as a medium for simple extraction of DNA for PCR-based typing from forensic material. BioTechniques 10: 506–513.
  • Wingfield MJ, Klein H (2012). DNA extraction techniques for DNA barcoding of minute gall-inhabiting wasps. Molecular Ecology Resources 12: 109–115.
There are 24 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Structural Biology
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Murat Güler

Filiz Tokgöz Güler This is me

Ertan Mahir Korkmaz

Mahir Budak

Publication Date October 11, 2018
Submission Date February 5, 2018
Published in Issue Year 2018 Volume: 44 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Güler, M., Tokgöz Güler, F., Korkmaz, E. M., Budak, M. (2018). Böcek Dokularından DNA İzolasyonu Yöntemlerinin Kalite, Verim ve Maliyet Açısından Karşılaştırılması. Selçuk Üniversitesi Fen Fakültesi Fen Dergisi, 44(2), 135-148.
AMA Güler M, Tokgöz Güler F, Korkmaz EM, Budak M. Böcek Dokularından DNA İzolasyonu Yöntemlerinin Kalite, Verim ve Maliyet Açısından Karşılaştırılması. sufefd. October 2018;44(2):135-148.
Chicago Güler, Murat, Filiz Tokgöz Güler, Ertan Mahir Korkmaz, and Mahir Budak. “Böcek Dokularından DNA İzolasyonu Yöntemlerinin Kalite, Verim Ve Maliyet Açısından Karşılaştırılması”. Selçuk Üniversitesi Fen Fakültesi Fen Dergisi 44, no. 2 (October 2018): 135-48.
EndNote Güler M, Tokgöz Güler F, Korkmaz EM, Budak M (October 1, 2018) Böcek Dokularından DNA İzolasyonu Yöntemlerinin Kalite, Verim ve Maliyet Açısından Karşılaştırılması. Selçuk Üniversitesi Fen Fakültesi Fen Dergisi 44 2 135–148.
IEEE M. Güler, F. Tokgöz Güler, E. M. Korkmaz, and M. Budak, “Böcek Dokularından DNA İzolasyonu Yöntemlerinin Kalite, Verim ve Maliyet Açısından Karşılaştırılması”, sufefd, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 135–148, 2018.
ISNAD Güler, Murat et al. “Böcek Dokularından DNA İzolasyonu Yöntemlerinin Kalite, Verim Ve Maliyet Açısından Karşılaştırılması”. Selçuk Üniversitesi Fen Fakültesi Fen Dergisi 44/2 (October 2018), 135-148.
JAMA Güler M, Tokgöz Güler F, Korkmaz EM, Budak M. Böcek Dokularından DNA İzolasyonu Yöntemlerinin Kalite, Verim ve Maliyet Açısından Karşılaştırılması. sufefd. 2018;44:135–148.
MLA Güler, Murat et al. “Böcek Dokularından DNA İzolasyonu Yöntemlerinin Kalite, Verim Ve Maliyet Açısından Karşılaştırılması”. Selçuk Üniversitesi Fen Fakültesi Fen Dergisi, vol. 44, no. 2, 2018, pp. 135-48.
Vancouver Güler M, Tokgöz Güler F, Korkmaz EM, Budak M. Böcek Dokularından DNA İzolasyonu Yöntemlerinin Kalite, Verim ve Maliyet Açısından Karşılaştırılması. sufefd. 2018;44(2):135-48.

Journal Owner: On behalf of Selçuk University Faculty of Science, Rector Prof. Dr. Metin AKSOY
Selcuk University Journal of Science Faculty accepts articles in Turkish and English with original results in basic sciences and other applied sciences. The journal may also include compilations containing current innovations.

It was first published in 1981 as "S.Ü. Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi" and was published under this name until 1984 (Number 1-4).
In 1984, its name was changed to "S.Ü. Fen-Edeb. Fak. Fen Dergisi" and it was published under this name as of the 5th issue.
When the Faculty of Letters and Sciences was separated into the Faculty of Science and the Faculty of Letters with the decision of the Council of Ministers numbered 2008/4344 published in the Official Gazette dated 3 December 2008 and numbered 27073, it has been published as "Selcuk University Journal of Science Faculty" since 2009.
It has been scanned in DergiPark since 2016.

88x31.png

Selcuk University Journal of Science Faculty is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.