Comparative study on three methods of nucleic acid extraction and three kinds of real-time fluorescence quantitative PCR instrument
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1003-9279.2017.02.018
- VernacularTitle: 3种核酸提取方法及3种实时荧光定量PCR仪检测结果的比较
- Author:
Qiuhua WU
1
;
Yongjian ZHANG
2
;
Zhen TIAN
3
;
Hongdong LI
3
;
Zheng LI
3
;
Boyun SI
4
;
Wenbo XU
1
;
Songtao XU
1
Author Information
1. National Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, China Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing 102206, China
2. People′s Hospital of Dingzhou, Hebei Province, Dingzhou 073000, China
3. Xi′an Tianlong Science and Technology Co Ltd, Xi′an 710018, China
4. Health Supervision Institution of Tongzhou Health Bureau, Beijing 101101, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Nucleic acid extraction;
Real-time fluorescence quantitative PCR;
Randomized block design
- From:
Chinese Journal of Experimental and Clinical Virology
2017;31(2):165-168
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To explore the differences among three methods of nucleic acid extraction and three kinds of real-time fluorescence quantitative PCR instrument.
Methods:Twenty-five respiratory virus nucleic acid and 25 enterovirus nucleic acid positive samples were with selected at random and nucleic acids were extracted by using three methods (method A, B, and C). The results among different methods were analyzed by randomized block design. 25 respiratory viral nucleic acid positive specimens and enterovirus nucleic acid positive samples were detected by using three kinds of real-time fluorescence quantitative PCR instrument (instrument A, B, and C). The results among different instruments were analyzed by randomized block design.
Results:There was a significant difference among three methods of nucleic acid extraction in results(χ2=42.9162, P<0.001), in which method A and C had not significant difference(Z=0.837, P=0.3816>0.05), while method A vs. B, B vs. C were significantly different(Z=7.025, P<0.001; Z=7.9, P<0.001). There was also a significant difference among three kinds of real-time fluorescence quantitative PCR instrument in results(χ2=23.773, P<0.001), in which instrument B and C had no significant difference(Z=0.75, P=0.4533>0.05), while instrument A vs. B, A vs. C were significantly different(Z=5.70, P<0.001; Z=6.45, P<0.001).
Conclusions:There is difference among different methods and instruments in the test results under the same condition, which call for options in practical work according to need.
