论文部分内容阅读
目的比较Chelex-100法和硅珠法两种DNA提取法,在签字笔上附着微量脱落上皮细胞分型中的应用效果。方法 17名志愿者每人使用14支签字笔,每支笔每天使用20min,为期1个月,平均分为两组,分别保存1、3、5、7、14、21和28d,同时运用Chelex-100法和硅珠法两种方法提取签字笔上遗留微量脱落细胞中的DNA,用Identifiler复合扩增系统在AB I 3100遗传分析仪上对这些DNA样品进行STR分型,同时采集上述17名志愿者口腔拭子作为对照。结果以基因座检出个数为指标,使用后签字笔保存1、3、5、7、14、21和28d后,采用Chelex-100法和硅珠法两种方法提取DNA并进行分型检出的基因座个数相比差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01);口腔拭子保存1、3、5、7、14、21和28d后,采用Chelex-100法和硅珠法两种方法提取DNA并进行分型检出的基因座个数相比差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论对于微量检材,应用硅珠法提取的DNA分型效果明显优于Chelex-100法,具有较高的应用价值,而在检材量比较多时区别不明显。
OBJECTIVE To compare the application of Chelex-100 method and silica bead method in DNA extraction of micro-shedding epithelial cells on pen. Methods Seventeen volunteers each used 14 pen pens. Each pens used 20min every day for 1 month, divided into two groups on average, which were respectively kept for 1, 3, 5, 7, 14, 21 and 28d, -100 method and the silicon bead method two methods to extract the trace amount of penicillin cells exfoliated cells with Identifiler composite amplification system AB I 3100 genetic analyzer for these DNA samples were STR typing at the same time the above 17 A volunteer buccal swab served as a control. Results The number of detected loci was used as an index. After using the pen for 1, 3, 5, 7, 14, 21 and 28 days, Chelex-100 method and silica gel method were used to extract the DNA and perform the typing test (P <0.01). After the oral swabs were stored for 1, 3, 5, 7, 14, 21 and 28 days, Chelex-100 method and silica beads method There was no significant difference in the number of loci detected by DNA extraction and typing (P> 0.05). Conclusion For the microscopic samples, the DNA typing method using silica bead method is obviously superior to Chelex-100 method, which has a high value of application, but the difference is not obvious when the amount of sample is relatively large.