Skip Navigation


AOBPreview originally published online on July 4, 2006
Annals of Botany 2006 98(3):679-689; doi:10.1093/aob/mcl141
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
98/3/679    most recent
mcl141v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (18)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by LOUREIRO, J.
Right arrow Articles by SANTOS, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by LOUREIRO, J.
Right arrow Articles by SANTOS, C.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by LOUREIRO, J.
Right arrow Articles by SANTOS, C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org


TECHNICAL ARTICLE

Comparison of Four Nuclear Isolation Buffers for Plant DNA Flow Cytometry

JOÃO LOUREIRO1,*, ELEAZAR RODRIGUEZ1, JAROSLAV DOLEZEL2 and CONCEIÇÃO SANTOS1

1 Laboratory of Biotechnology and Cytomics, Department of Biology, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal and 2 Laboratory of Molecular Cytogenetics and Cytometry, Institute of Experimental Botany, Sokolovská, Olomouc, CZ-77200, Czech Republic

* For correspondence. E-mail jloureiro{at}bio.ua.pt

Received: 15 March 2006    Returned for revision: 24 April 2006    Accepted: 22 May 2006    Published electronically: 4 July 2006

Background and Aims 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 interfering with DNA staining.

Key words: Angiosperms, flow cytometry, genome size, lysis buffers, nuclear DNA content, nuclear isolation buffers, propidium iodide, stoichiometric error


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
ANN BOT (LOND)Home page
J. Greilhuber
Cytochemistry and C-values: The Less-well-known World of Nuclear DNA Amounts
Ann. Bot., April 1, 2008; 101(6): 791 - 804.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Crop Sci.Home page
J. Zale, L. Ohnoutkova, D. West, C. Sams, J. Biggerstaff, and M. L. Puil
Micropropagation of Field-Grown Perennial Teosinte from Node Culture
Crop Sci., March 19, 2008; 48(2): 651 - 655.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN BOT (LOND)Home page
J. Loureiro, E. Rodriguez, J. Dolezel, and C. Santos
Two New Nuclear Isolation Buffers for Plant DNA Flow Cytometry: A Test with 37 Species
Ann. Bot., August 7, 2007; (2007) mcm152v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN BOT (LOND)Home page
S. Castro, J. Loureiro, C. Santos, M. Ater, G. Ayensa, and L. Navarro
Distribution of Flower Morphs, Ploidy Level and Sexual Reproduction of the Invasive Weed Oxalis pes-caprae in the Western Area of the Mediterranean Region
Ann. Bot., March 1, 2007; 99(3): 507 - 517.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.