Comparison of commercial DNA preparation kits for the detection of Brucellae in tissue using quantitative real-time PCR

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The detection of Brucellae in tissue specimens using PCR assays is difficult because the amount of bacteria is usually low. Therefore, optimised DNA extraction methods are critical. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of commercial kits for the extraction of <it>Brucella </it>DNA.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Five kits were evaluated using clinical specimens: QIAamp™ DNA Mini Kit (QIAGEN), peqGold™ Tissue DNA Mini Kit (PeqLab), UltraClean™ Tissue and Cells DNA Isolation Kit (MoBio), DNA Isolation Kit for Cells and Tissues (Roche), and NucleoSpin™ Tissue (Macherey-Nagel). DNA yield was determined using a quantitative real-time PCR assay targeting IS<it>711 </it>that included an internal amplification control.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Kits of QIAGEN and Roche provided the highest amount of DNA, Macherey-Nagel and Peqlab products were intermediate whereas MoBio yielded the lowest amount of DNA. Differences were significant (p < 0.05) and of diagnostic relevance. Sample volume, elution volume, and processing time were also compared.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We observed differences in DNA yield as high as two orders of magnitude for some samples between the best and the worst DNA extraction kits and inhibition was observed occasionally. This indicates that DNA purification may be more relevant than expected when the amount of DNA in tissue is very low.</p

Diagnosis of recent and relapsed cases of human brucellosis by PCR assay

BACKGROUND: Brucellosis affects human populations in many developing countries including the Middle East, and Latin America where it is still endemic. It has been prevalent in Jordan for years, where 7842 cases of human brucellosis were registered at the Ministry of Health during 10 year-period. This study was initiated by the recent increase in the number of human cases diagnosed in a rural area in the Northern Jordan to help assess the status of the disease in that area. For this purpose blood specimens from brucellosis suspected cases were tested by serology, culture and PCR. METHODS: Peripheral blood specimens from 50 healthy control subjects and 165 seropositive patients having compatible signs and symptoms that were clinically diagnosed to have brucellosis were tested by blood culture, and by PCR. The PCR assay used genus-specific primers from the conserved region of the 16S rRNA sequence, which showed high specificity for the Brucella spp. RESULTS: Diagnosis of Brucella was established by PCR in 120 cases (72.7%). All of them were seropositive and 20 were positive by culture. Forty-eight of 58 (82.8%) of the relapsed cases two months after completing the treatment with an increase in the previous serological titers were positive by PCR. The assay has 85.7% positive predicative value, 100% sensitivity and specificity since it correctly identified all cases that were positive by blood cultures, 95.8% by serology and none of the control group was positive. CONCLUSIONS: Results showed that PCR assay can be applied with serology for the diagnosis of brucellosis suspected cases and relapses regardless of the duration or type of the disease without relying on the blood cultures, especially in chronic cases