Čeština
EnglishComparison of four nuclear isolation buffers for plant DNA flow cytometry
Loureiro, J., Rodriguez, E., Doležel, J., Santos, C.
ANNALS OF BOTANY 98: 679-689, 2006
Keywords: flow cytometry; genome size; nuclear DNA content
Abstract: DNA flow cytometry requires preparation of suspensions of intact nuclei, which are stained using a DNA-specific fluorochrome prior to analysis. Various buffer formulas were developed to preserve nuclear integrity, protect DNA from degradation and facilitate its stoichiometric staining. Although nuclear isolation buffers differ considerably in chemical composition, no systematic comparison of their performance has been made until now. This knowledge is required to select the appropriate buffer for a given species and tissue. - Methods Four common lysis buffers (Galbraith’s, LB01, Otto’s and Tris.MgCl2) were used to prepare samples from leaf tissues of seven plant species (Sedum burrito, Oxalis pes-caprae, Lycopersicon esculentum, Celtis australis, Pisum sativum, Festuca rothmaleri and Vicia faba). The species were selected to cover a wide range of genome sizes (1.30–26.90 pg per 2C DNA) and a variety of leaf tissue types. The following parameters were assessed: forward (FS) and side (SS) light scatters, fluorescence of propidium iodide-stained nuclei, coefficient of variation of DNA peaks, presence of debris background and the number of nuclei released from sample tissue. The experiments were performed independently by two operators and repeated on three different days. - Key Results Clear differences among buffers were observed. With the exception of O. pes-caprae, any buffer provided acceptable results for all species. LB01 and Otto’s were generally the best buffers, with Otto’s buffer providing better results in species with low DNA content. Galbraith’s buffer led to satisfactory results and Tris.MgCl2 was generally the worst, although it yielded the best histograms in C. australis. A combined analysis of FS and SS provided a ‘fingerprint’ for each buffer. The variation between days was more significant than the variation between operators. - Conclusions Each lysis buffer tested responded to a specific problem differently and none of the buffers worked best with all species. These results expand our knowledge on nuclear isolation buffers and will facilitate selection of the most appropriate buffer depending on species, tissue type and the presence of cytosolic compounds interferingwith DNA staining.
DOI:
IEB authors: Jaroslav Doležel
ANNALS OF BOTANY 98: 679-689, 2006
Keywords: flow cytometry; genome size; nuclear DNA content
Abstract: DNA flow cytometry requires preparation of suspensions of intact nuclei, which are stained using a DNA-specific fluorochrome prior to analysis. Various buffer formulas were developed to preserve nuclear integrity, protect DNA from degradation and facilitate its stoichiometric staining. Although nuclear isolation buffers differ considerably in chemical composition, no systematic comparison of their performance has been made until now. This knowledge is required to select the appropriate buffer for a given species and tissue. - Methods Four common lysis buffers (Galbraith’s, LB01, Otto’s and Tris.MgCl2) were used to prepare samples from leaf tissues of seven plant species (Sedum burrito, Oxalis pes-caprae, Lycopersicon esculentum, Celtis australis, Pisum sativum, Festuca rothmaleri and Vicia faba). The species were selected to cover a wide range of genome sizes (1.30–26.90 pg per 2C DNA) and a variety of leaf tissue types. The following parameters were assessed: forward (FS) and side (SS) light scatters, fluorescence of propidium iodide-stained nuclei, coefficient of variation of DNA peaks, presence of debris background and the number of nuclei released from sample tissue. The experiments were performed independently by two operators and repeated on three different days. - Key Results Clear differences among buffers were observed. With the exception of O. pes-caprae, any buffer provided acceptable results for all species. LB01 and Otto’s were generally the best buffers, with Otto’s buffer providing better results in species with low DNA content. Galbraith’s buffer led to satisfactory results and Tris.MgCl2 was generally the worst, although it yielded the best histograms in C. australis. A combined analysis of FS and SS provided a ‘fingerprint’ for each buffer. The variation between days was more significant than the variation between operators. - Conclusions Each lysis buffer tested responded to a specific problem differently and none of the buffers worked best with all species. These results expand our knowledge on nuclear isolation buffers and will facilitate selection of the most appropriate buffer depending on species, tissue type and the presence of cytosolic compounds interferingwith DNA staining.
DOI: