1
An efficient DNA isolation protocol for cyanobacteria of the genus Arthrospira
2
Nicolas Morina,b, Tatiana Vallaeysc, Larissa Hendrickxa†, Leys Nataliea, Annick Wilmotteb
3
4
a
5
SCK•CEN, Mol, Belgium
6
b
7
Liège, Belgium
8
c
Expert group for Molecular and Cellular Biology, Belgian Nuclear Research Center
Center for Protein Engineering, Institute of Chemistry, University of Liège, Sart Tilman B6,
UMR5119 ECOLAG, University of Montpellier 2, Montpellier, France
9
10
Corresponding author : Nicolas Morin, Expert group for Molecular and Cellular
11
Biology, Belgian Nuclear Research Center SCK•CEN, Boeretang 200, 2400 Mol,
12
Belgium.Tel. : +32(0) 14 332116. Email: nmorin@sckcen.be
1
1
ABSTRACT
2
Thanks to their photosynthetic and nutritive properties, cyanobacteria of the Arthrospira
3
genus are of interest as food supplements, as efficient oxygen producing life support system
4
organisms for manned space flight, and for the production of biofuels. Despite these potential
5
valuable applications, full genome sequences and genetic information in general on
6
Arthrospira remain scarce. This is mainly due to the difficulty to extract sufficient high
7
molecular weight nucleic acids from these filamentous cyanobacteria. In this article, an
8
efficient and reproducible DNA extraction procedure for cyanobacteria of the genus
9
Arthrospira was developed. The method is based on the combination of a soft mechanical
10
lysis with enzymatic disruption of the cell wall. The comparison with other extraction
11
protocols clearly indicates that this optimised method allows a maximal recovery of DNA.
12
Furthermore, the extracted DNA presents a high molecular weight, a reduced degradation and
13
an excellent overall quality. It can be directly used for molecular biology purposes such as
14
PCR.
15
16
Keywords : Arthrospira sp.; cyanobacteria; DNA extraction; PCR
2
1
1. Introduction
2
3
While DNA isolation seems to be a routine procedure for most organisms including viruses,
4
bacteria, fungi, parasites, insects, mammals and plants (Liu, 2009), it is, for various reasons, a
5
rather difficult one when performed on cyanobacteria (Fiore et al., 2000; Wu et al., 2000).
6
The common problems encountered in DNA isolation from cyanobacteria mainly range from
7
cell lysis efficiency (Billi et al., 1998 ; Fiore et al., 2000), to purification issues (Porter, 1988).
8
Even though several methods for extracting cyanobacterial DNA have already been reported
9
in the literature (e.g. Mazur et al., 1980 ; T. Kallas et al., 1983), their respective efficiencies
10
can greatly vary from one species to another (Mak et al., 1992; Fiore et al., 2000). The broad
11
morphological, metabolic and ecological diversities found within the cyanobacterial phylum
12
might be the main reason for this inherent fluctuating efficiencies. Some species have proven
13
to be particularly difficult to extract DNA from, requiring the development of specific DNA
14
isolation protocols (Billi et al., 1998).
15
This is the case for members of the genus Arthrospira Stizenberger. This genus includes
16
filamentous cyanobacteria with multicellular cylindrical trichomes arranged in an helicoidal
17
shape, cross-walls visible by light microscopy, and containing gas-vesicles (Castenholz et al.,
18
2001). Arthrospira are naturally growing in marine, brackish water and saline lake
19
environments of tropical and semi-tropical regions (Ciferri and Tiboni, 1985). In addition to
20
being efficient oxygen producers, members of the Arthrospira genus appear to be rich in
21
proteins, essential fatty acids, essential amino acids, vitamins and iron (Ciferri, 1983).
22
“Generally Recognised As Safe” by the US Food and Drug Administration (Tarantino, 2003),
23
Arthrospira are commonly sold as a nutrition supplements under the name “spirulina”. Some
24
medical studies claim that consumption of Arthrospira could have therapeutic properties as
25
well, but no conclusive results could confirm its potential use as a drug so far (Ayehunie et
26
al., 1998 ; Karkos et al., 2008). Due to its nutritive properties along with its photosynthetic
3
1
way of life, Arthrospira sp. PCC8005 has even been selected by the European Space Agency
2
as a food complement and oxygen producer within the Micro-Ecological Life Support System
3
Alternative, currently under development for long-term manned space missions (Hendrickx et
4
al., 2006). Furthermore, certain species of Arthrospira have recently been investigated for the
5
production of biomass as a precursor to hydrogen and liquid fuels (Ananyev et al., 2008).
6
Despite all these interests, genetic information on Arthrospira remains scarce. While the rapid
7
development of genome sequencing and molecular biology has lead to remarkable discoveries
8
in life sciences during the last decade, no sequencing projects have been successful in closing
9
the genome of this cyanobacterium so far. One of the reasons for this absence appears to be
10
the difficulty to obtain sufficient high quality DNA material from Arthrospira cultures (ref).
11
Arthrospira cells possess a very low amount of genomic DNA compared to other bacteria.
12
The nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) represent circa 4 % of the dry weight of an Arthrospira
13
cell, while it can reach up to 20 % in fast-growing bacteria like Bacillus subtilis (Ciferri,
14
1983). Furthermore, Arthrospira cells are notably rich in substances which are difficult to
15
remove from DNA extracts such as polysaccharides and polyphenols (De Philippis and
16
Vincenzini, 1998). Finally, Arthrospira cells possess an important number of restriction
17
endonucleases (Zhao et al., 2006). These enzymes are an important line of defence against the
18
incorporation of foreign DNA, but also represent an additional difficulty for DNA extraction,
19
as they can act as an autodestruction-like mechanism during the extraction process.
20
In this article, a novel DNA extraction procedure for filamentous cyanobacteria of the genus
21
Arthrospira was developed. The efficiency of the protocol was compared against a selection
22
of DNA extraction methods : (i) The Wizard® Genomic DNA Purification System
23
(PromegaTM), a universal bacterial DNA extraction method, based on enzymatic lysis and
24
isolation of the nucleic acids on a silica membrane; (ii) the Miniprep protocol (Ausubel et al.,
25
1995), a universal bacterial DNA extraction method, relying on enzymatic cell wall lysis in
26
liquid cultures; (iii) a Fast-Prep®-based extraction procedure (Feurer et al., 2004), a universal
4
1
extraction DNA procedure, relying on mechanical lysis of the cells by bead beating; (iv) a
2
specific method for Arthrospira sp. (Baurain et al., 2002), relying on several washing steps to
3
remove lipophilic pigments and render the samples more susceptible to enzymatic lysis; (v) a
4
procedure for the isolation of high molecular weight DNA from plant-fungus complexes
5
(Möller et al., 1992), using a combination of both mechanical and enzymatic lysis. The high
6
quantity, quality and suitability of the purified Arthrospira DNA for molecular PCR based
7
reactions was demonstrated.
8
9
2. Materials and methods
10
2.1. Strain and culture conditions
11
Arthrospira sp. PCC8005 was cultivated in “Zarrouk” medium (Zarrouk, 1966) as 100 ml
12
cultures in 250 ml Erlenmeyer flasks under normal ambient atmosphere. The cultures were
13
kept in a light incubator at 6000 lux, at 30 °C, and shaken at 100 rpm (Braun Certomat BS-1
14
Shaking Incubator, Sartorius Stedim Biotech). Extraction samples were harvested at one third
15
of the exponential growth phase (OD 750nm ~ 1.0).
16
17
2.2. DNA extraction and purification
18
The following extraction procedures were repeated 4 times, each time on 4 different
19
biological replicates, to assess the reproducibility of the methods. For each DNA extraction
20
cells were collected by centrifugation of 5 ml from a stock culture (10 min, 3500 rpm) before
21
being treated accordingly to each protocol. DNA samples were stored at -20 °C before further
22
utilisation.
23
24
(i) Wizard® Genomic DNA Purification System, PromegaTM. The extraction was
25
performed according to the instruction of the manufacturer
26
(http://www.promega.com/applications/dna_rna/productprofiles/a1120/default.htm).
5
1
2
(ii) Miniprep of bacterial genomic DNA (Ausubel et al. 1995). Cells were resuspended in
3
567 µl TE buffer (10 mM Tris, 1 mM EDTA, pH 8.0) by repeated pipetting. Lysis of the cells
4
was performed using 30 µl of 10 % SDS and 3 µl of 20 mg/ml proteinase K. The mix was
5
subsequently incubated for 1 h at 37 °C. Selective precipitation of proteins and
6
polysaccharides was performed using 80 µl of CTAB/NaCl (10 % CTAB, 0.7 M NaCl) in
7
presence of 100 µl of 5 M NaCl. The samples were gently mixed by inversion and incubated
8
for 10 min at 65 °C. Nucleic acids were thereafter isolated by a phenol:chloroform:isoamyl
9
alcohol (25:24:1, Sigma-Aldrich®) separation, followed by one chloroform:isoamyl alcohol
10
(24:1, Sigma-Aldrich®) separation. DNA was finally recovered by precipitation using 0.6
11
volume of isopropanol and centrifugation (5 min, 4 °C, 15000 rpm). The DNA pellets were
12
washed with 1 ml of cold 70 % ethanol. Finally, the tubes were centrifuged one last time 5
13
min (4 °C, 15000 rpm), the supernatant was discarded, and each pellet dried before being
14
resuspended in 100 µl TE Buffer (10 mM Tris, 1 mM EDTA, pH 8.0).
15
16
(iii) Fast-Prep® DNA Purification (Feurer et al. 2004). Cells were resuspended into 200 µl
17
TE buffer, and transferred into fresh 1.5 ml tubes. Samples were first pre-treated using
18
lysozyme (50 µl of 5 mg/ml) and RNAse A (30 µl of 10 mg/ml), and the tubes were incubated
19
30 min at 37 °C. The mix was transferred into 2 ml screw cap tubes (MO BIO Laboratories,
20
Inc. ) containing ~ 0.2 g of glass beads (212-300 µm, Sigma-Aldrich®), 30 µl 10 % SDS and
21
200 µl phenol:chloroform:isoamyl alcohol (25:24:1, Sigma-Aldrich®). Mechanical lysis of
22
the samples was subsequently performed : the tubes were placed in a Fast-Prep®-24
23
Instrument (MPTM Biomedicals), and mixed two times 40 sec, force 6, with 1 min on ice
24
between each run. The tubes were then centrifuged 5 min (4 °C, 15000 rpm), and the
25
supernatant collected. Purification of the DNA was performed by adding 0.1 volume from a 3
26
M ammonium acetate solution, along with 2.5 volumes of cold 100 % ethanol. The tubes were
6
1
placed 1 h at -20 °C, then centrifuged for 20 min (4 °C, 15000 rpm). The supernatant was
2
discarded, and the DNA pellets were washed with 1 ml of cold 70 % ethanol, and dried before
3
being resuspended in 100 µl TE buffer (10 mM Tris, 1 mM EDTA, pH 8.0).
4
5
(iv) DNA extraction protocol for Arthrospira (Baurain et al., 2002 ; adapted from Pitcher
6
et al., 1989). Cells were washed one time with 100 % ethanol to remove lipophilic pigments,
7
and two times with 1 ml RS buffer (0.15 M NaCl, 0.01 M EDTA, pH 8.0). Cell lysis was
8
done in presence of 100 µl of 50 mg/ml lysozyme for 30 min at 37 °C. Protein degradation
9
was subsequently performed in presence of 2.5 µl of 10 mg/ml proteinase K, for 1 h at 37 °C.
10
Cell lysis was achieved by a last incubation for 15 min at 37 °C, in presence of 500 µl GES
11
buffer (60 % wt/vol guanidium thiocyanate, 0.1 M EDTA, pH 8.0, 1 % wt/vol sarkosyl). The
12
mix was kept for 10 min on ice, followed by an addition of 150 µl 5 M NaCl and 250 µl cold
13
7.5 M ammonium acetate. After the tubes were kept on ice for another 10 min, a first
14
extraction was performed using 500 µl of phenol:chloroform:isoamyl alcohol (25:24:1,
15
Sigma-Aldrich®), followed by a second one with 500 µl of chloroform:isoamyl alcohol (24:1,
16
Sigma-Aldrich®). The nucleic acids were precipitated with 100 % ethanol, collected by
17
centrifugation, (4 °C, 15000 rpm), and dried before being resuspended in 100 µl TE Buffer
18
(10 mM Tris, 1 mM EDTA, pH 8.0). The samples were treated with 1 µl of RNAse (10
19
mg/ml) for 1 h at 37 °C.
20
21
(v) DNA extraction protocol from filamentous fungi, fruit bodies and infected plant
22
tissues (Möller et al., 1992). Cells were collected by centrifugation (10 min, 3500 rpm), and
23
further grinded in a mortar using liquid nitrogen and a pestle. The resulting powder was
24
recovered into 2 ml eppendorf tubes, then resuspended in 500 µl of TES buffer (100 mM Tris,
25
pH 8.0; 10 mM EDTA; 2 % SDS). 5 µl of 50 mg/ml Proteinase K was then added and the
26
tubes are incubated for one hour at 37 °C. Selective precipitation of proteins and
7
1
polysaccharides was performed using 140 µl of 5 M NaCl along with 1/10 vol of 10 %
2
CTAB, followed by 10 min incubation at 65 °C. A unique extraction step was performed by
3
adding 1 volume chloroform:isoamyl alcohol (24:1, Sigma-Aldrich®). The tubes were placed
4
on ice for 30 min, before being centrifuged for 10 min (4 °C, 15000 rpm). The supernatant
5
was transferred to fresh tubes. 225 µl of 5 M ammonium acetate was added, mixed gently and
6
the tubes were placed on ice, before being centrifuged 10 min (4 °C, 15000 rpm). The
7
supernatant was transfered, 0.5 volume isopropanol was added and the tube was placed for at
8
least one hour at -20 °C to precipitate DNA (to maximize DNA recovery, this step can be
9
performed overnight). The nucleic acids were recovered by centrifugation, 15 min (4 °C,
10
15000 rpm). The supernatant was discarded and the DNA pellet was washed with 1 ml of cold
11
70 % ethanol. Finally, the tube was centrifuged one last time 5 min (4 °C, 15000 rpm), the
12
supernatant was discarded, and the pellet dried before being resuspended in 100 µl TE Buffer
13
(10 mM Tris, 1 mM EDTA, pH 8.0).
14
15
(vi) Novel optimised DNA extraction protocol. Cells were resuspended into 0.5 ml of 0.15
16
M NaCl, 0.1 M EDTA, and poured into 2 ml cryogenic vials (Nalgene®). Three freeze-
17
thawing cycles, alternating freezing in liquid nitrogen and thawing at 37 °C in a water bath,
18
were used to damage the cell walls and render the cells more susceptible to further enzymatic
19
lysis. The cells were collected by centrifugation (10 min, 8000 rpm), resuspended in 0.5 ml
20
TE Buffer (10 mM Tris, 1 mM EDTA, pH 8.0) and transferred to fresh 2 ml tubes for
21
enzymatic cell wall lysis with 100 µl of 50 mg/ml lysozyme for 30 min at 37 °C.
22
Subsequently, proteins were degraded with 5 µl of 50 mg/ml proteinase K and in 2 % SDS
23
final concentration, for 1 h at 37 °C. Polysaccharides, proteins and cell wall debris were
24
thereafter removed by selective precipitation with CTAB in presence of NaCl : 150 µl of 5 M
25
NaCl was added to the tubes, followed by 0.1 volume of a 10 % CTAB stock solution. The
26
samples were gently mixed by inversion, then further incubated at 65 °C for 10 minutes to
8
1
optimize the formation of CTAB-protein and -polysaccharides complexes. Nucleic acids
2
purification was achieved by extraction in 1 volume of chloroform:isoamyl alcohol (24:1,
3
Sigma-Aldrich®). The tubes were placed on ice for 30 min to allow precipitation of CTAB
4
complexes, before being centrifuged (10 min, 8000 rpm). The supernatant was transferred to a
5
fresh tube, gently mixed with 0.6 volume of isopropanol until DNA precipitated. The DNA
6
pellets were recovered by centrifugation, (10 min, 4 °C, 15000 rpm) and washed with 1 ml of
7
ice cold 70 % ethanol to remove any residual salt. After a final centrifugation (5 min, 4 °C,
8
15000 rpm), the supernatant was discarded, and the pellets were dried before being
9
resuspended in 100 µl TE Buffer (10 mM Tris, 1 mM EDTA, pH 8.0). The samples were
10
treated with 1 µl of RNAse (10 mg/ml) for 1 h at 37 °C.
11
12
2.3. DNA quantification and purity analysis
13
The quantity and purity of the DNA extracts was assessed by spectrophotometry using the
14
ND-1000 system (NanoDrop Technologies, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.). The absorbances
15
at 230, 260 and 280 nm were measured on 2 µl of each sample. Concentration of DNA was
16
estimated by spectrophotometric quantification at 260 nm. The overall purity was assessed by
17
calculating the absorbance ratios 260/280 and 260/230. High values for both ratio (260/280 >
18
1.8, 260/230 > 2) are commonly accepted as good indicators for pure DNA (Manchester,
19
1995). In contrast, a low 260/280 ratio highlights a protein and/or phenol contamination
20
within the sample, while a low 260/230 ratio will indicate the presence of organic compounds
21
such as phenolate, thiocyanates, carbohydrates, or salts in the extract.
22
23
2.4. DNA quality analysis
24
The molecular weight and degradation of the isolated DNA were analysed by gel
25
electrophoresis. 10 µl of sample were loaded on a 1 % wt/vol agarose gel stained with
26
ethidium bromide (final concentration 100µM/L, Sigma-Aldrich®) and submitted to
9
1
electrophoresis at 100V for 1h. A 1 kb+ DNA ladder (InvitrogenTM) was used as a reference
2
to evaluate the size of the DNA.
3
4
2.5. PCR amplification
5
In order to confirm the suitability of the extracted DNA for molecular biology purpose, a PCR
6
was performed according to the Internally Transcribed Spacer (ITS) detection protocol
7
(Scheldeman et al., 1999; Baurain et al., 2002). Six PCR reactions were carried out, for the
8
two clusters and the four subclusters characterizing the ITS variations of Arthrospira species.
9
PCR primers and conditions were selected accordingly to the protocol described in (Baurain
10
et al., 2002). The PCR products were subsequently loaded on a 1 % wt/vol agarose gel stained
11
with ethidium bromide (final concentration 100µM/L, Sigma-Aldrich®) and analysed through
12
electrophoresis at 100V for 1h.
13
14
2.6. Statistical analyses
15
All statistical analyses were performed using the R software (R Development Core Team,
16
2008). Comparison of the DNA yields and purity of the extracts was performed using non-
17
parametric tests. The Kruskal-Wallis test was first used to compare the methods altogether.
18
This test, intuitively similar to a one-way analysis of variance, assessed if the different
19
methods produced the same amount of DNA with the same quality levels, or if at least one
20
method differed from the others. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was subsequently used to
21
compare the optimised protocol against each other procedure independently. This test, as the
22
non-parametric equivalent of the Student test, helped to determine whether the eventual
23
differences observed between the optimised protocol and the other isolation methods were
24
significant or not. An alpha level of 5 % (p < 0.05) was used for each test to accept or reject
25
the null hypothesis.
26
10
1
3. Results
2
3.1. DNA quantity and purity
3
A significant difference in DNA yield was observed between the methods tested (Figure 1a
4
and Figure 2). While the Promega kit appeared inefficient, the other procedures gave disparate
5
results. Finally, the optimised protocol allowed the recovery of a significantly higher amount
6
of DNA compared to all the other methods (Wilcoxon test : p < 0.05). The amount of DNA
7
isolated through this protocol was more than twice the amount of DNA obtained with the
8
protocol described by Baurain et al. (2002), the second most efficient protocol in terms of
9
yield. As for DNA yields, some significant differences in both wavelength ratios were
10
observed between the methods tested (Figure 1b). Samples isolated with the Fastprep method
11
showed a significantly compromised purity, with a small protein contamination and an
12
important salts and/or phenolic contamination absorbing at 260 nm. In addition, the extracts
13
from the Baurain et al. (2002) method appeared to contain an important salt contamination, as
14
shown by the very low 260/230 ratio. This might be due to the use of a very high
15
concentration of guanidine salts in the GES extraction buffer (60 % wt/vol). Finally, the DNA
16
samples isolated with the Miniprep protocol (Ausubel et al., 1995), the plant-fungus
17
extraction protocol (Möller et al., 1992) and the optimised protocol presented ratio values
18
above the quality thresholds.
19
20
3.2. DNA quality
21
The analysis of the DNA extracts by electrophoresis supported the previous observations
22
(Figure 2). The DNA extracted with the Fast-Prep protocol was very degraded. The
23
mechanical disruption of the cell wall using glass beads is an efficient lysis method, but
24
appeared to have a strong shearing effect on DNA. Interestingly, the DNA extracted with the
25
protocol described by Baurain et al. (2002) showed an incomplete migration pattern. A
26
significant fraction of the DNA appeared to be blocked in the wells of the electrophoresis gel.
11
1
The salt contaminants detected by spectrophotometry (Figure 1b) might have formed
2
complexes with the DNA, resulting in an alteration of its migration. The DNA extracted with
3
both the method described by Möller et al. (1992) and the optimised protocol presented a
4
normal migration pattern. The DNA isolated with the optimised DNA isolation protocol
5
showed a normal migration, no degradation and the strongest fluorescence intensity, which
6
indicates a higher amount and purity (Figure 1a).
7
8
3.3. PCR amplification
9
Two of the DNA samples extracted with the optimised protocol were used to perform a PCR
10
detection of the ITS. Amplification of PCR products was only positive for cluster I and
11
subcluster IB primer pairs (Fig. 3), with a product size of circa 325 bp, as expected for
12
Arthrospira sp. PCC8005 (Baurain et al., 2002). This result confirmed the fact that the DNA
13
extracted with the proposed procedure is suitable for molecular biology analysis such as PCR.
14
15
4. Discussion
16
As for many filamentous species (Fiore et al., 2000), the efficiency of DNA isolation
17
procedures appeared to be extremely variable for cyanobacteria of the genus Arthrospira sp.
18
PCC8005. The different protocols tested presented striking differences in terms of results.
19
More than just highlighting the efficiency of the new optimised protocol, they also represent a
20
clear illustration of the two major problems encountered in DNA isolation from cyanobacteria
21
: poor cell lysis efficiency (Billi et al., 1998 ; Fiore et al., 2000) and high contamination or
22
poor purity (Porter, 1988).
23
Cell lysis efficiency clearly appeared as a critical step for DNA extraction from Arthrospira
24
sp. In general, when only enzymatic methods were used, bad results were obtained, such as
25
with the Wizard® Genomic DNA Purification System (PromegaTM) and the Miniprep method
26
(Ausubel et al., 1992). Arthrospira cells proved to be very difficult to disrupt only by
12
1
enzymatic treatment. The particular filamentous structure of Arthrospira sp., with its complex
2
multi-layered cell wall (Ciferri, 1983) and specific ultrastructures such as the polysaccharidic
3
sheath surrounding the cells (Hoiczyk and Hansel, 2000), certainly represents obstacles for
4
the enzymatic degradation. In contrast, a purely mechanical lysis such as the Fastprep method
5
(Feurer et al., 2004) was powerful enough to induce cell lysis, without any enzymatic help.
6
Bead-beating is indeed known to allow the extraction of nucleic acids from a wide variety of
7
organisms for which lysis can be otherwise difficult, such as plants (Haymes et al., 2004 ;
8
Roberts, 2007) or fungi (Borneman and Hartin, 2000). It was also successfully used to
9
overcome the lysis effects encountered with the desert cyanobacterium Chroococidiopsis
10
(Billi et al., 1998). However, the resulting DNA is strongly sheared by this mechanical lysis,
11
and does not allow to obtain intact high molecular weight DNA.
12
The combination of a soft mechanical treatment with enzymatic lysis appeared as the best
13
alternative for efficient Arthrospira cell lysis. Such a combination had been reported to be
14
successful with Microcystis aeruginosa samples (Fiore et al., 1999). Hence, Arthrospira sp.
15
cell walls needed to be weakened either chemically or mechanically as a complement to
16
enzymatic lysis. The chaotropic agent guanidium thiocyanate (Baurain et al., 2002) has been
17
used for that purpose. Its protein denaturing properties fulfilled the cell lysis, while preventing
18
the action of DNases (Pitcher, 1989). Nevertheless, the extracted DNA suffered from a strong
19
contamination absorbing at 230 nm, most likely a consequence of the very high concentration
20
of guanidium thiocyanate salts.
21
The use of a mechanical lysis such as the freeze-grinding method developed by Möller et al.
22
(1992), proved to be more appropriate. This method was developed to isolate nucleic acids
23
from plant-fungus complexes, which present similar difficulties as the one encountered with
24
Arthrospira (i.e. high production of polysaccharides, few high molecular weight DNA).
25
However, although the quality of the extracted DNA was good, this method yielded a reduced
26
and more variable amount of DNA. Indeed, part of the samples can be lost during the grinding
13
1
process or the following transfer to a fresh test tube, which makes this method less
2
reproducible. In this paper, a freeze-thawing alternative was developed and appears as a more
3
conservative method. It is sufficient to render the cells susceptible to further enzymatic lysis,
4
while avoiding any degradations due to shearing stress. This method also allows a maximal
5
recovery from the samples, making it more reproducible than freeze-grinding based methods.
6
As for purity of the extracted DNA, the best results were obtained with the Miniprep protocol
7
(Ausubel et al., 1995), the plant-fungus extraction protocol (Möller et al., 1992) and the
8
optimised protocol. The common denominator between these methods is the selective
9
precipitation of proteins and polysaccharides using CTAB in presence of NaCl. The use of
10
CTAB was already known to be a critical step for DNA extraction of plants (Murray and
11
Thompson, 1980). It also appeared as an essential one to remove the important amount of
12
proteins and polysaccharides present in Arthrospira sp. (Ciferri, 1983). The introduction of
13
this step clearly improves the efficiency of the extraction procedure, and the final
14
quality/purity of the extracted DNA.
15
The DNA extracted with the optimised protocol presents a high molecular weight, a reduced
16
degradation and an excellent overall quality. The developed procedure is fast (only 3-4 hours
17
to complete a full extraction) and reproducible. It does not require the utilisation of toxic
18
coumpounds such as phenol, which could lead to the production of hazardous waste. Finally,
19
it is suitable for molecular biology techniques such as polymerase chain reaction.
20
A few articles have reported the isolation of nucleic acids from Arthrospira species among
21
other bacteria (Tripathi and Rawal, 1998; Wu et al., 2000; Liu et al., 2005; Ling et al., 2007).
22
However, it is generally impossible to assess the different DNA yields due to the absence of
23
measurement data in the manuscripts. The method described by Mak and Ho (1992) for DNA
24
isolation of bacteria and cyanobacteria reported the extraction of approximatively 55 µg of
25
nucleic acids from 30 mg of wet weight of Arthrospira platensis. By extrapolation, the
26
optimised protocol allowed the recovery of circa 50 µg of genomic DNA from 40-50 mg wet
14
1
weight (measured from a 5 ml culture at OD 750nm ~ 1.0, data not shown). While the
2
isolation protocol described by Mak and Ho (1992) could seem slightly more efficient, the
3
apparent higher yield is most likely an overestimation due to the absence of RNAse treatment
4
(i.e. the extraction of total nucleic acids, including DNA and RNA).
5
6
5. CONCLUSION
7
By combining an efficient dual enzymatic and a freeze-thawing lysis step with a selective
8
CTAB precipitation, we have designed a protocol to extract efficiently and reproducibly DNA
9
of high quality from Arthrospira sp. The comparison with the other extraction protocols tested
10
in this article clearly shows that the optimised method allows a maximal recovery of highly
11
pure and intact DNA, suitable for further molecular analysis. Later, the high quality DNA was
12
also effectively used for full genome DNA sequencing (article in preparation). The possibility
13
to obtain high quality DNA will be an important step towards an improvement of our genomic
14
knowledge of Arthrospira and a better understanding of this particular organism.
15
16
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
17
This work is dedicated to the memory of Dr. ir. L. Hendrickx who initiated the study of
18
Arthrospira sp. in space flight conditions and the related sequencing project. This research
19
was partly funded by the Belgian Nuclear Research Center (SCK•CEN) through the PhD
20
AWM grant of N. Morin. We also thank the European Space Agency (ESA-PRODEX, ESA-
21
GSTP) and the Belgian Science Policy (Belspo) for the financial support in the Arthrospira
22
sp. PCC8005 sequencing project. We thank C. Lasseur and C. Paillé, both from ESTEC/ESA,
23
for their constant support and advice in the frame of the MELiSSA project.
15
1
REFERENCES
2
Ananyev G., Carrieri D., Dismukes G.C. , 2008. Optimization of metabolic capacity and flux
3
through environmental cues to maximize hydrogen production by the cyanobacterium
4
"Arthrospira (Spirulina) maxima". Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 74, 6102-6113.
5
Ausubel, F.M., Brent, R., Kingston, R.E., Moore, D.D., Seidman, J.G., Smith, J.A., Struhl,
6
K., 1995. Short Protocols in Molecular Biology (3rd ed), John Wiley And Sons, New York,
7
USA.
8
Ayehunie, S., Belay, A., Baba, T.W., Ruprecht., R.M., 1998. Inhibition of HIV-1 replication
9
by an aqueous extract of Spirulina platensis (Arthrospira platensis). J. Acq. Immun. Def.
10
Synd. 18, 7-12.
11
Baurain, D., Renquin, L., Grubisic, S., Scheldeman, P., Belay, A., Wilmotte, A., 2002.
12
Remarkable conservations of internally transcribed spacer sequences of Arthrospira
13
(“Spirulina”) (Cyanophycae, Cyanobacteria) strains from four continents and of recent and
14
30-year-old dried samples from Africa. J. Phycol. 38, 384-393.
15
Billi, D., Caiola, M.G., Paolozzi, L., Ghelardini, P., 1998. A Method for DNA Extraction
16
from the Desert Cyanobacterium Chroococcidiopsis and Its Application to Identification of
17
ftsZ. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 64, 4053-4056.
18
Borneman, J., Hartin., R.J., 2000. PCR primers that amplify fungal rRNA genes from
19
environmental samples. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66, 4356-4360.
20
Castenholz, R.W., 2001. Phylum BX. Cyanobacteria. Oxygenic Photosynthetic Bacteria. In :
21
Boone, D.R., Castenholz, R.W., Garrity, G.M. (Eds.), Bergey’s Manual of Systematic
22
Bacteriology, Volume 1: The Archaea and the Deeply Branching and Phototrophic Bacteria,
23
Springer-Verlag, New-York, USA, pp. 473 – 597.
24
Ciferri, O., 1983. Spirulina, the edible microorganism. Microbiol Rev 47, 551-78.
25
Ciferri, O., Tiboni O., 1985. The biochemistry and industrial potential of Spirulina. Annu.
26
Rev. Microbiol. 39, 503-26.
16
1
Feurer, C., Irlinger, F., Spinnler, H.E., Glaser, P., Vallaeys, T., 2004. Assessment of the rind
2
microbial diversity in a farmhouse-produced vs a pasteurized industrially produced soft red-
3
smear cheese using both cultivation and rDNA-based methods. J. Appl. Microbiol. 97, 546-
4
556.
5
Fiore, M. F., Moon, D.H., Tsai, S.M., Lee, H., Trevors J.T., 2000. Miniprep DNA isolation
6
from unicellular and filamentous cyanobacteria. J. Microbiol. Meth. 39, 159-169.
7
Haymes, K.M., Ibrahim, I.A., Mischke, S., Scott, D.L., Saunders J.A., 2004. Rapid isolation
8
of DNA from chocolate and date palm tree crops. J. Agric. Food Chem. 52, 5456-5462.
9
Hendrickx L., De Wever H., Hermans V., Mastroleo F., Morin N., Wilmotte A., Janssen P.,
10
Mergeay M., 2006. Microbial ecology of the closed artificial ecosystem MELiSSA (Micro-
11
Ecological Life Support System Alternative): reinventing and compartmentalizing the Earth's
12
food and oxygen regeneration system for long-haul space exploration missions. Res.
13
Microbiol., 157, 77-86.
14
Hoiczyk, E., Hansel., A., 2000. Cyanobacterial cell walls: news from an unusual prokaryotic
15
envelope. J. Bacteriol. 182, 1191-1199.
16
Kallas, T., Rebière, M.C., Rippka, R., Tandeau de Marsac, N., 1983. The structural nif genes
17
of the cyanobacteria Gloeothece sp. and Calothrix sp. share homology with those of
18
Anabaena sp., but the Gloeothece genes have a different arrangement. J. Bacteriol. 155, 427–
19
431.
20
Karkos P.D., Leong S.C., Karkos C.D., Sivaji N., Assimakopoulos D.A., 2008. Spirulina in
21
Clinical Practice: Evidence-Based Human Applications. Evid. Based Complement. Alternat.
22
Med., published online, doi:10.1093/ecam/nen058.
23
Ling, N., Mao, Y., Zhang, X., Mo, Z., Wang, G., Liu, W., 2007. Sequence analysis of
24
Arthrospira maxima based on fosmid library. J. Appl. Phycol. 19, 333-346.
25
Liu, D., 2009. Handbook of Nucleic Acid Purification, CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA.
17
1
Liu, J., Zhang, X., Sui, Z., Zhang, X., Mao, Y., 2005. Cloning and characterization of c-
2
phycocyanin operon from the cyanobacterium Arthrospira platensis FACHB341. J. Appl.
3
Phycol. 17, 181-185.
4
Mak, Y.M., Ho, K.K., 1992. An improved method for the isolation of chromosomal DNA
5
from various bacteria and cyanobacteria. Nucleic Acids Res. 20, 4101-4102.
6
Manchester, K.L., 1995. Value of A260/A280 ratios for measurement of purity of nucleic
7
acids. Biotechniques 19, 208-210.
8
Mazur, B.J., Rice, D., Haselkorn, R., 1980. Identification of blue-green algal nitrogen fixation
9
genes by using heterologous DNA hybridization probes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 77, 186-
10
190.
11
Möller, E.M., Bahnweg, G., Sandermann, H., Geiger, H.H., 1992. A simple and efficient
12
protocol for isolation of high molecular weight DNA from filamentous fungi, fruit bodies, and
13
infected plant tissues. Nucleic Acids Res. 20, 6115-6116.
14
Murray, M.G., Thompson, W.F., 1980. Rapid isolation of high molecular weight plant DNA.
15
Nucleic Acids Res. 8, 4321-4325.
16
De Philippis, R., Vincenzini, M., 1998.Exocellular polysaccharides from cyanobacteria and
17
their possible applications. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 22, 151-175.
18
Pitcher, D.G., Saunders, N.A., Owen, R.J., 1989. Rapid extraction of bacterial genomic DNA
19
with guanidium thiocyanate. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 8, 151-156.
20
Porter, R.D., 1988. DNA transformation. Methods in Enzymol. 167, 703-712.
21
R Development Core Team, 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing.
22
R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL
23
http://www.R-project.org.
24
Roberts, A.V. 2007. The use of bead beating to prepare suspensions of nuclei for flow
25
cytometry from fresh leaves, herbarium leaves, petals and pollen. Cytometry Part A 71, 1039-
26
1044.
18
1
Scheldeman, P., Baurain, D., Bouhy, R., Scott, M., Mühling, M., Whitton, B.A., Belay, A.,
2
Wilmotte A., 1999. Arthrospira (“Spirulina”) strains from four continents are resolved into
3
only two clusters, based on amplified ribosomal DNA restriction analysis of the internally
4
transcribed spacer. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 172, 213-222.
5
Tarantino L.M., 2003. Agency Response Letter GRAS Notice No. GRN. 000127. FDA Home
6
page.
7
Tripathi, G., Rawal, S.K., 1998. Simple and efficient protocol for isolation of high molecular
8
weight DNA from Streptomyces aureofaciens. Biotechnology Techniques 12, 629-631.
9
Wu, X., Zarka, A., Boussiba, S., 2000. A Simplified Protocol for Preparing DNA from
10
Filamentous Cyanobacteria. Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 18, 385-392.
11
Zarrouk, C., 1966. Contribution à l'étude d'une cyanophycée: influence de divers facteurs
12
physiques et chimiques sur la croissance et la photosynthèse de Spirulina maxima (Setch et
13
Gardner) Geitler. PhD thesis, Faculté des Sciences de l'Université de Paris.
14
Zhao, F., Zhang, X., Liang, C., Wu, J., Bao, Q., Qin, S., 2006. Genome-wide analysis of
15
restriction-modification system in unicellular and filamentous cyanobacteria. Physiol.
16
Genomics 24, 181-190.
17
18
19
1
LEGENDS
2
Figure 1 : Average DNA concentration (a) and quality markers (b) obtained with each
3
extraction protocol. As for the Promega kit, the ratios were unreliable due to the absence of
4
DNA after extraction.
5
6
Figure 2 : Electrophoresis of the extracted DNA on a 1 % wt/vol agarose gel (1,6,11,16,21,26:
7
1 kb+ DNA ladder, InvitrogenTM; 2-4: Wizard®; 7-10: miniprep; 12-15: FastPrep®; 17-20:
8
Baurain et al. (2002) ;22-25: Möller et al.(1992); 27-30: Morin et al.)
9
10
Figure 3 : Detection and amplification of ITS sequences using the DNA extracted with the
11
optimised protocol (1,6,15: 1 kb+ DNA ladder, InvitrogenTM; 2,3: cluster I; 4,5: cluster II; 7,8:
12
subcluster IA; 9,10: subcluster IB; 11,12: subcluster IIA; 13-14: subcluster IIB).
13
Amplification is positive for cluster I (a) and subcluster IB (b) (~325 kb), as expected for
14
Arthrospira sp. PCC8005 (Baurain et al., 2002)
15
16
17
18
20
1
2
FIGURE 1
(a)
(b)
600
2.5
500
2
400
300
200
4
FIGURE 2
6
8
9
10
1
0
Promega
7
1.5
0.5
100
0
5
260/230
260/280
Quality markers
DNA concentration (ng/µl)
3
FIGURE 3
Miniprep
Möller
Fastprep
Baurain
Morin
Fastprep
Baurain
Möller
Miniprep
Morin