Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Submit your paper to J Biol Methods today!
Photo
- - - - -

genomic DNA extraction


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 bandit

bandit

    member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 01 October 2010 - 09:19 PM


Hi,
I have got a problem with plant genomic dna extraction. I use quigen kit. I am perplexed by the recurrence of smear in the gel picture. I am wondering why I am not getting a clear band of DNA. Though dna degradation may produce smear on above the main band of DNA but why is there a smear below the main band area. Does anyone has a solution? I would be very thankful!!

Attached Thumbnails

  • PA020026.JPG

Edited by bandit, 02 October 2010 - 05:08 AM.


#2 Adrian K

Adrian K

    Legendary Graduate Beggar

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 708 posts
28
Excellent

Posted 02 October 2010 - 03:50 AM

Smear is common. IMHO, I don't see any problem with the quality of your extracted genomic DNA...
Also, your ladder also have some smear as well. IS your agarose had fully solidified before you run your gel? OR did you run your gel in high voltage?
Expecting the world to treat you fairly because you are a good person is like expecting the lion not to attack you because you are a vegetarian.

..."best of our knowledge, as far as we know this had never been reported before, though I can't possible read all the published journals on earth, but by perform thorough search in google, the keywords did not match any documents"...

"what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger"---Goddess Casandra reminds me to be strong

"It's all just DNA. Do it."---phage434

#3 bandit

bandit

    member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 02 October 2010 - 04:52 AM

Smear is common. IMHO, I don't see any problem with the quality of your extracted genomic DNA...
Also, your ladder also have some smear as well. IS your agarose had fully solidified before you run your gel? OR did you run your gel in high voltage?




Hi, Thank you very much. I used 100v to run the gel. The agarose was fully solidified. :ph34r:

#4 phage434

phage434

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,484 posts
251
Excellent

Posted 02 October 2010 - 07:31 AM

The problem is that your gel is upside down ;-).

Actually, this looks like very high quality genomic DNA. Forward.

You may want to get into the habit of adding some DNA stain to your running buffer -- the low intensity part of the gel is due to the dye you put into the agarose running in the opposite direction from the DNA. Dye in the running buffer will replace it and keep the DNA bands that are short from disappearing when they move into the unstained area.

Also, I think you are using Bromphenol Blue and Xylene Cyanole FF dyes, which can obscure bands and make them difficult to read. Orange G loading buffer dyes run ahead of most DNA fragments, and are a pleasant substitute.

#5 bandit

bandit

    member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 03 October 2010 - 08:32 PM

The problem is that your gel is upside down ;-).

Actually, this looks like very high quality genomic DNA. Forward.

You may want to get into the habit of adding some DNA stain to your running buffer -- the low intensity part of the gel is due to the dye you put into the agarose running in the opposite direction from the DNA. Dye in the running buffer will replace it and keep the DNA bands that are short from disappearing when they move into the unstained area.

Also, I think you are using Bromphenol Blue and Xylene Cyanole FF dyes, which can obscure bands and make them difficult to read. Orange G loading buffer dyes run ahead of most DNA fragments, and are a pleasant substitute.


I got the point. Thank you for your encouragement. :)

#6 Ameya P

Ameya P

    Rervm Cognoscere Cavsas

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 333 posts
26
Excellent

Posted 03 October 2010 - 10:36 PM

You may want to get into the habit of adding some DNA stain to your running buffer -- the low intensity part of the gel is due to the dye you put into the agarose running in the opposite direction from the DNA. Dye in the running buffer will replace it and keep the DNA bands that are short from disappearing when they move into the unstained area.


Phage,

Could you suggest a non-carcinogenic DNA stain to be added to the running buffer? or else at what concentration should EtBr be added to the running buffer? Also, is it possible to not add any stain to agarose when preparing the gel and just use the stain in the running buffer?

NEW!!!!  Wonder why this was not part of Chemistry class, ever!  on CoffeeTableScience!!!!

Image copyright: Adrian Koh SF.
Replication of this art is strictly prohibited without express permission of the artist


#7 phage434

phage434

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,484 posts
251
Excellent

Posted 04 October 2010 - 04:36 AM

We use sybr safe for both the gel and the running buffer. But it's expensive, and probably not much different in toxicity than EtBr. I tend to be driven by the paranoia of my colleagues, but I think low concentrations of EtBr are basically non-toxic.

If you're willing to take the time, then staining the gel after running it is probably best. If you destain as well, then you get high sensitivity to boot.

#8 Maddie

Maddie

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 289 posts
3
Neutral

Posted 04 October 2010 - 08:28 AM

Gosh, Phage, this is a great idea. Can't believe I never thought of doing that before :P .
I think someone asked, but what concentration of ethidium bromide would you recommend? I know you use SBG, but are concentrations similar?
Theory is when we know everything and nothing is working. Practice is when everything is working and nobody knows why. Here, we combine theory and practice. Nothing is working and nobody knows why.

A. Einstein

#9 microgirl

microgirl

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 122 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 04 October 2010 - 08:47 AM

How much Sybr Safe are you adding to your running buffer? I hate the stuff to begin with because I don't get good results adding it to the gel, but my PI won't have EtBr in the lab, and I don't want to stain afterwards. Maybe sticking it in the running buffer also would help.

#10 phage434

phage434

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,484 posts
251
Excellent

Posted 04 October 2010 - 11:12 AM

It's totally non-critical. I usually add about 10 ul of a 10 mg/ml solution to 200 ml of running buffer -- the same as when you make a gel, basically.

#11 hobglobin

hobglobin

    Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional...

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,539 posts
101
Excellent

Posted 04 October 2010 - 11:49 AM

We use 0.1–0.2 µg EtBr per ml gel...works fine.
Silver staining and crystal violet are also less-toxic alternatives, if you really need them (I agree with phage that EtBr toxicity is overrated). E.g. Invitrogen offers a gel purification kit with crystal violet, to avoid UV-light for visualisation (S.N.A.P. Gel Purification Kit).

Edited by hobglobin, 04 October 2010 - 12:00 PM.

One must presume that long and short arguments contribute to the same end. - Epicurus
...except casandra's that belong to the funniest, most interesting and imaginative (or over-imaginative?) ones, I suppose.

That is....if she posts at all.


#12 Ameya P

Ameya P

    Rervm Cognoscere Cavsas

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 333 posts
26
Excellent

Posted 04 October 2010 - 09:39 PM

We use sybr safe for both the gel and the running buffer. But it's expensive, and probably not much different in toxicity than EtBr. I tend to be driven by the paranoia of my colleagues, but I think low concentrations of EtBr are basically non-toxic.

If you're willing to take the time, then staining the gel after running it is probably best. If you destain as well, then you get high sensitivity to boot.


Unfortunately, my colleagues find it messy to stain the gel after running it. Also personally, I prefer to see the results immediately after the run, rather than wait for another 15 mins for staining. That is why, I am looking for an alternative which is non-toxic and quick. Thanks anyways... :)

NEW!!!!  Wonder why this was not part of Chemistry class, ever!  on CoffeeTableScience!!!!

Image copyright: Adrian Koh SF.
Replication of this art is strictly prohibited without express permission of the artist





Home - About - Terms of Service - Privacy - Contact Us

©1999-2013 Protocol Online, All rights reserved.