Comparison of DNA and RNA extraction efficiency from blood

Objective·To comprehensively evaluate the efficiency of different kits and methods for DNA and RNA extraction from blood samples.Methods·A total of 145 blood samples were collected, including those from patients with Alzheimer's disease (20 cases), fibrosis (5 cases), colorectal cancer (108 cases), and healthy individuals (12 cases). A column-based kit (Kit A) and a nucleic acid extraction instrument were used to extract genomic DNA (gDNA) from leukocytes in the blood. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and cell-free RNA (cfRNA) in plasma were extracted using five different kits (Kit B‒F), which employed either column-based (Kit B, E) or magnetic bead-based methods (Kit C, D, F). The extraction process of Kit B was optimized by increasing the plasma sample volume and extending the elution incubation time. Furthermore, this protocol was applied to extracting cfDNA from plasma samples of 100 colorectal cancer patients. Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) was used to quantify the extracted DNA and RNA, and the molecular yields were compared to evaluate the extraction efficiency. A comprehensive assessment was conducted, considering factors such as cost and operation time.Results·In gDNA extraction, although the the operation time was shortened by using the nucleic acid extraction instrument, the median number of DNA molecules extracted using Kit A (column-based method) was 25.36-fold higher than that obtained with the instrument (P<0.05). For cfDNA extraction, while the overall efficiency of the three kits (Kit B‒D) was similar, Kit B (column-based method) showed superior performance in low-concentration samples, with average DNA yields 4.24-fold and 1.18-fold higher than those of Kit D and Kit C (both magnetic bead-based). Optimization of Kit B's extraction protocol further improved cfDNA yield. When comparing three samples, the cfDNA yields from larger plasma input volumes was 3.98-fold, 2.38-fold, and 3.82-fold higher than those from smaller input volumes, respectively. The results of cfDNA extraction from 100 colorectal cancer patients indicated that this extraction protocol reliably extracted sufficient amounts of cfDNA from clinical samples. For cfRNA extraction, Kit E (column-based method) was widely recommended due to its high efficiency, convenience, and cost-effectiveness. The median RNA content extracted using Kit E was 5.01-fold higher than that of Kit F (magnetic bead-based method). Lastly, a comparison of the copy numbers of cfDNA and cfRNA in plasma revealed that the average copy number of cfRNA per milliliter of plasma was 27.65-fold higher than that of cfDNA.Conclusion·Kit A, Kit B, and Kit E show outstanding performance in leukocyte gDNA extraction, plasma cfDNA extraction, and plasma cfRNA extraction, respectively. However, although Kit E has advantages in extraction efficiency and cost, its safety requires further evaluation.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Published
2025-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2025.04.010
Primary Topic
Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of DNA and RNA extraction efficiency from blood

SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
article

Comparison of DNA and RNA extraction efficiency from blood

article en

Abstract

Objective·To comprehensively evaluate the efficiency of different kits and methods for DNA and RNA extraction from blood samples.Methods·A total of 145 blood samples were collected, including those from patients with Alzheimer's disease (20 cases), fibrosis (5 cases), colorectal cancer (108 cases), and healthy individuals (12 cases). A column-based kit (Kit A) and a nucleic acid extraction instrument were used to extract genomic DNA (gDNA) from leukocytes in the blood. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and cell-free RNA (cfRNA) in plasma were extracted using five different kits (Kit B‒F), which employed either column-based (Kit B, E) or magnetic bead-based methods (Kit C, D, F). The extraction process of Kit B was optimized by increasing the plasma sample volume and extending the elution incubation time. Furthermore, this protocol was applied to extracting cfDNA from plasma samples of 100 colorectal cancer patients. Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) was used to quantify the extracted DNA and RNA, and the molecular yields were compared to evaluate the extraction efficiency. A comprehensive assessment was conducted, considering factors such as cost and operation time.Results·In gDNA extraction, although the the operation time was shortened by using the nucleic acid extraction instrument, the median number of DNA molecules extracted using Kit A (column-based method) was 25.36-fold higher than that obtained with the instrument (P<0.05). For cfDNA extraction, while the overall efficiency of the three kits (Kit B‒D) was similar, Kit B (column-based method) showed superior performance in low-concentration samples, with average DNA yields 4.24-fold and 1.18-fold higher than those of Kit D and Kit C (both magnetic bead-based). Optimization of Kit B's extraction protocol further improved cfDNA yield. When comparing three samples, the cfDNA yields from larger plasma input volumes was 3.98-fold, 2.38-fold, and 3.82-fold higher than those from smaller input volumes, respectively. The results of cfDNA extraction from 100 colorectal cancer patients indicated that this extraction protocol reliably extracted sufficient amounts of cfDNA from clinical samples. For cfRNA extraction, Kit E (column-based method) was widely recommended due to its high efficiency, convenience, and cost-effectiveness. The median RNA content extracted using Kit E was 5.01-fold higher than that of Kit F (magnetic bead-based method). Lastly, a comparison of the copy numbers of cfDNA and cfRNA in plasma revealed that the average copy number of cfRNA per milliliter of plasma was 27.65-fold higher than that of cfDNA.Conclusion·Kit A, Kit B, and Kit E show outstanding performance in leukocyte gDNA extraction, plasma cfDNA extraction, and plasma cfRNA extraction, respectively. However, although Kit E has advantages in extraction efficiency and cost, its safety requires further evaluation.

SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Shanghai University (CN), Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN), Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (CN), Shanghai Advanced Research Institute (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 48%
Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.