Comparison of three genomic DNA

extraction methods
Background
The world’s top three cereals, based on their monetary value, are rice, wheat, and corn. In cereal
crops, DNA extraction is difficult owing to rigid non-cellulose components in the cell wall of
leaves and high starch and protein content in grains. The advanced techniques in molecular
biology require pure and quick extraction of DNA. The majority of existing DNA extraction
methods rely on long incubation and multiple precipitations or commercially available kits to
produce contaminant-free high molecular weight DNA.

Results
In this study, we compared three different methods used for the isolation of high-quality genomic
DNA from the grains of cereal crop, Zea mays, with minor modifications. The DNA from the
grains of two maize hybrids, M10 and M321, was extracted using extraction methods DNeasy
Qiagen Plant Mini Kit, CTAB-method (with/without 1% PVP) and modified Mericon extraction.
Genes coding for 45S ribosomal RNA are organized in tandem arrays of up to several thousand
copies and contain codes for 18S, 5.8S and 26S rRNA units separated by internal transcribed
spacers ITS1 and ITS2. While the rRNA units are evolutionary conserved, ITS regions show
high level of interspecific divergence and have been used frequently in genetic diversity and
phylogenetic studies. In this study, the genomic DNA was then amplified with PCR using
primers specific for ITS gene. PCR products were then visualized on agarose gel.

Conclusion
The modified Mericon extraction method was found to be the most efficient DNA extraction
method, capable to provide high DNA yields with better quality, affordable cost and less time.

Background

The extraction of good quality DNA with a high yield is a limiting factor in plants’ genetic
analysis. DNA quality from each line should be consistent to allow a proper genetic analysis
from several plant individuals. High quality of DNA is characterized by predominantly high
molecular weight fragments with an A260/280 ratio between 1.8 and 2.0 and the lack of
contaminating substances, such as polysaccharides and phenols [1]. The extraction and
purification of high-quality DNA from cereals is generally difficult due to the presence of
polysaccharides, proteins, and DNA polymerase inhibitors such as tannins, alkaloids, and
polyphenols. The presence of these compounds effects the quality and quantity of isolated DNA,
and therefore, renders the sample non-amplifiable [2]. Polysaccharides, the most commonly
found contaminants in plant DNA extraction, make DNA pellets slimy and difficult to handle.
The anionic contaminants inhibit restriction enzymes and effect enzymatic analysis of the DNA
[3]. DNA extraction using dry seeds of wheat, barley, rice, and other cereals for RFLP and PCR
based analyses of plant genotypes and genetic variation has been studied earlier [4–6]. Pure and
rapid DNA extraction is a pre-requisite for most advanced techniques such as genetic mapping,
fingerprinting, marker-assisted selection, and for evaluating authenticity of exported cereal
varieties. The extraction of high-quality DNA from plant tissue is time consuming, arduous, and
costly due to multiple steps and the high cost of liquid nitrogen. In addition, the problems
associated with the available commercial kits are their high cost and low yield of DNA [5, 7].
Several methods to isolate DNA from plant tissues are available; however, these methods
produce either small amounts or DNA of inconsistent quality. Most of the DNA extraction
methods are modified versions of cetyltrimethyl ammonium bromide (CTAB) extraction with
some crop-to-crop limitations and differ in time and cost. The main cause of the differences in
the CTAB protocol is the composition of cell walls and intracellular components such as nucleus
mitochondria and cellulose. CTAB is a cationic surfactant added in the DNA extraction buffer,
which dissociates and selectively precipitates DNA from histone proteins [27]. The lignification
of cereal cell walls makes its degradation difficult and thus limits DNA extraction. Although
commercially available column-based extraction kits are effective in isolating contaminant-free
DNA from recalcitrant plant species, there is still loss of significant amounts of DNA on the
column. The Mericon method provides fast and easy DNA purification in convenient spin
column format. Typical yields are 3–30 μg of high-quality DNA, depending on the samples used.
The purification of DNA using the DNeasy Plant Mini Kit method was modified to simplify the
protocol and maximize DNA yield. DNA quality required for PCR and sequencing is often very
high with DNA of high molecular weight and with less shearing, free of contamination from
protein, RNA or polysaccharides, and 260/280 nm absorbance ratio of approximately 1.8–2.0. A
fast, simple, and reliable DNA extraction method, which does not require long incubations,
multiple DNA precipitations, or commercial reagents, and could meet the PCR, sequencing, and
next-generation library preparation requirements, will be invaluable to plant research. Therefore,
the aim of this study was to compare quality and quantity of DNA isolated using three different
extraction methods.

Methods

Plant material and tissue disruption

Zea mays grains (M10 and M231) were obtained from the Crop Institute, Agricultural Research
Center, Giza, Egypt. The grains were soaked in water for 24 h at 25 °C and the embryos were
isolated from them using scalpel. The grains were crushed in mortar to obtain fine powder and
100 mg of each sample was transferred to an Eppendorf tube. In parallel, 100 mg of the grain
pieces were ground into a fine powder using liquid nitrogen.

DNA extraction
Qiagen-method
Maize DNA was extracted using a commercially available kit (DNeasy Plant Mini Kit, Qiagen,
Valencia, CA, USA) following the manufacturer’s instructions. The DNeasy membrane from
QIAGEN combines the binding properties of a silica-gel based membrane with micro spin
technology. DNA is adsorbed to the DNeasy membrane in the presence of high salt
concentrations of chaotropic salt, which removes water from hydrated molecules in solution. In
DNeasy extraction procedure, buffer conditions are designed to allow adsorption of DNA
specific to the silica-gel membrane and offer an optimal removal of carbohydrates, polyphenols
and other plant metabolites. The time consumed in this method was about 1.5–2 h for 10
samples.

CTAB-based method
The genomic DNA was extracted from 100 mg of each sample by CTAB-based method
according to Inga et al. [8] with slight modification. The sample was mixed with 300 μL sterile
deionized water, 500 μL of CTAB buffer (20 g CTAB/L, 2.56 M NaCl, 0.1 M Tris–HCl, 20 mM
EDTA) and 20 μL proteinase K (20 mg/mL). In parallel extraction, 1% polyvinylpyrrolidone
(PVP) was added. The samples were incubated for 1.5 h at 65 °C and 20 μL RNase A
(10 mg/mL) was added. Then the mixture was incubated in a thermo-shaker water bath (65 °C)
for 10 min. The samples were subjected to centrifugation at 16,000×g for 10 min and
supernatants were extracted twice with 500 μL chloroform. The upper phase was transferred to a
new tube and incubated at room temperature for 1 h after mixing it with double volume of CTAB
precipitation solution (5 g/L CTAB, 0.04 M NaCl). The samples were centrifuged for 5 min at
16,000×g and supernatants were discarded. The remaining precipitates were dissolved in 350 μL
of 1.2 M NaCl and 350 μL chloroform, and centrifuged at 16,000×g for 10 min. The upper phase
was transferred to another tube, mixed with 0.6 volume of isopropanol and centrifuged at
16,000×g for 10 min. The supernatant was discarded and pellet was washed with 500 μL of
ethanol (70% v/v). After centrifugation, the supernatant was carefully discarded, the pellet was
dried for 1 h, and DNA was dissolved in 100 μL sterile deionized water. The genomic DNA was
extracted following CTAB-based method used to extract DNA from seeds of soybean, wheat,
barley, oats, maize, and rice [9, 10]. This method took about 3–4 h for 10 samples.

Modified Mericon extraction method (Qiagen DNeasy Mericon Kit)

Maize DNA was extracted using commercially available kit (Qiagen DNeasy Mericon Kit),
following the manufacturer’s protocol. The sample, 100 mg (5 × 20 mg), was added to a 2-mL
Eppendorf tube containing 1 mL Lysis Buffer and 2.5 µL proteinase K solution, mixed
thoroughly and incubated in a thermo-shaker for 30 min at 65 °C and 1000 rpm, and allowed to
cool to room temperature (20 °C). The entire content of Eppendorf tube was transferred to a pre-
filter (Analytik Jena), centrifuged at 13,000×g for 5 min and 700 µL of supernatant was further
transferred into a new 2-mL Eppendorf tube. After adding 500 µL of chloroform to the
supernatant, the samples were mixed vigorously and centrifuged at 13,000×g for 15 min at 4 °C.
The upper phase was carefully collected, mixed with 500 µL chloroform and centrifuged again at
13,000 rpm for 15 min at 4 °C. The supernatant (in 250 µL batches) was collected in a 2-mL
Eppendorf tube and mixed carefully with 1 mL phosphate buffer. Then 600 µL of this solution
was transferred to a QIAquick spin column and centrifuged at 17,900×g for 1 min and filtrate
was discarded. The remaining batches of the same sample were similarly applied to respective
columns and subsequent steps were followed. Then 500 µL of AW2 (70% ethanol to wash the
salts out) was added to the QIAquick spin column and centrifuged at 17,900×g for 1 min. After
discarding the filtrate, the column was again centrifuged at 14,000×g for 1 min. The DNA was
eluted into fresh 1.5 mL Eppendorf tube by adding 30–100 µL elution buffer to QIAquick spin
column and incubating it for 5 min at room temperature and then centrifuging at 14,000×g for
1 min. Modified Mericon extraction method took ~1 h for 10 samples.
Spectrophotometric analyses of DNA
The concentration, purity (A260/A280 ratio), and absorbance ratio at 260–280 nm (A260/A230
ratio) were measured with a Thermo Scientific NanoDrop™ 1000 Spectrophotometer (Thermo
Scientific, Germany) using 1 µL of each sample. The spectra were recorded for a range of 220–
750 nm.

PCR amplification
The internal transcribed spacer (ITS) of nuclear ribosomal DNA, one of the most commonly
used DNA markers in plant phylogenetic and DNA barcoding analyses, is recommended as a
core plant DNA barcode [11]. For polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis, each DNA sample
was diluted to a working concentration of 20 ng/µL. ITS regions were amplified in a Peltier
Thermal Cycler (Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc., Germany) using the universal primers. The ITS
region (including ITS1, 5.8S and ITS2) of each sample was amplified with forward primers P1:
5-TCGTAACAAGGTTTCCGTAGG-3 and reverse P2: 5-TCCTCCGCTTATTGATATGC-3
[12]. The ITS region I between the 18S rDNA and the 5.8S rDNA is flanked by ITS 5 and ITS 2;
and ITS region II between the 5.8S rDNA and the 28S rDNA is flanked by ITS 3 and ITS 4 and
it should amplify 700 bp [12]. The oligonucleotides were synthesized and purified by MWG
Biotech. PCR reaction was carried out in a final volume of 12.5 μL containing 0.5 μL of DNA-
template, 12 μL of Taq master mix (Qiagen Biotech Co., Germany) supplemented with Taq
DNA polymerase (Jena Bioscience, Jena, Germany). Another PCR master mix was used to
amplify DNA extracted using Mericon extraction. PCR thermal cycling conditions were initial
denaturation at 94 °C for 3 min, followed by 35 cycles of denaturing at 94 °C for 1 min,
annealing at 61 °C for 1 min, extension at 72 °C for 1 min, with a final extension at 72 °C for
10 min [13].

Agarose gel electrophoresis

DNA was analyzed by agarose gel electrophoresis using 1, 1.5, and 2% agarose gel (SeaKem LE
agarose, Cambrex, gels for genomic and amplified DNA). Electrophoresis was performed using
1× Tris–Borate EDTA (TBE) buffer containing 1 μg/mL of ethidium bromide (EtBr) and a
constant voltage of 100 V for 50 min. The DNA bands were visualized and images were
acquired using Gel Doc XR+ Imaging system (Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc., Germany).

Results and discussion

Since the first use of CTAB-based method for extraction of DNA from plant leaves [14, 15], it
has been modified several times to reduce contaminants such as polyphenols and polysaccharides
that are present in the plant tissues [16–18]. Although all currently published methods of DNA
extraction have demonstrated their effectiveness in isolating DNA that is suitable for PCR
amplification or restriction digestion, they require long incubations, multiple precipitation steps,
and ethanol washes to produce RNA-free genomic DNA of high purity. These additional
manipulations reduce overall yield and may fail to produce large amounts of high quality of
DNA.
DNA quality and quantity assessment
The quality of each extracted DNA sample was verified spectrophotometrically using a
NanoDrop instrument and agarose gel electrophoresis. The NanoDrop absorbance profile is
useful for detection of contaminants such as protein, salts, and polysaccharides, which can inhibit
and interfere in DNA sequencing. The 260/280 nm ratio of 1.8 indicated that the extracted DNA
had high purity with absence of proteins and phenols. The overall DNA yield was in a range of
100–200 ng per 100 mg of homogenized material, which is sufficient to conduct 200 PCR
reactions. Table 1 summarizes the DNA yield and purity range obtained for all sample extracts
using the three extraction methods. Since matrix effect was reduced by using the same samples,
the variations in the data can be attributed to the effects of extraction methods. A 260/280 ratio in
this study was found to be in a range of 1.2–2.07. A 260/280 ratio between 1.93 and 2.27
indicates insignificant levels of contamination [19, 20]. Most authors used liquid nitrogen or
freeze-drying for primary extraction. In this study, high quality DNA was extracted without the
use of liquid nitrogen. The purity of DNA varied with the method of extraction (Table 1). DNA
purity can be severely affected by various components of sample matrices such as
polysaccharides, lipids, and polyphenols or extraction chemicals like CTAB. The Qiagen method
produced DNA samples with purity ratios in a range of 1.2–1.95 whereas the purity ratio of
samples extracted by CTAB was between 1.6 and 2.0. A purity ratio of >1.9 indicates the
presence of RNA in the sample. The ratio of <1.7 in few samples of DNA extracted by CATB
method suggests the presence of proteins in those samples. These differences could be explained
by the ability of some of the procedures in elimination of contaminating molecules. Sufficient
purity does not guarantee successful amplification of a gene; there are also other factors such as
concentration that also need consideration [21, 22]. High purity DNA was extracted from M 10
and M 321 using the three different extraction methods is shown in Figs. 1, 2 and 3. The
properties of high purity DNA extracted using the three extraction methods are compared in
Tables 2, 3 and 4. High quality DNA is characterised by 260/280 absorbance ratio of
approximately 1.8 with a single absorbance peak at 260 nm. The DNA concentrations were
higher among the samples obtained using modified Mericon extraction method (Fig. 1)
compared with that obtained with the CTAB-based extraction (Fig. 2) or Qiagen method (Fig. 3).
The ratio obtained varied from 1.6 to 1.8 indicating that the isolated DNA was free from
contamination [23]. The spectrophotometric profile showed maximum absorbance ratio
(260/280) of 2.7. The highest DNA yield was obtained from M10 hybrid by Mericon extraction
method for the first elution (386.9 ng/µL) and second elution (63.2 ng/µL). Similarly, the DNA
content of first and second elution of M 321 isolated by Mericon extraction method was 198.3
and 123 ng/µL, respectively. Concerning the comparison between the three methods in terms of
saving time for 15 samples preparation: Qiagen-Method Consumed time from 1.5 to 2 h, CTAB-
based method Consumed time from 3 to 4 h and Modified Mericon extraction method took ~1 h
for 15 samples. Also it worth mentioned that the cost of Qiagen DNA extraction kit for 250
samples equal 1200$ (US).

Table 1 Summary of DNA extraction methods used in this study

Full size table

Fig. 1
Nano-Drop measurement profile of genomic DNA extractions from Z. mays. DNA
extractions using Mericon extraction method. Probe = Sample
Full size image

Fig. 2

Nano-Drop measurement profile of genomic DNA extractions from Z. mays. DNA

extractions using a CTBA-based extraction method with and without
1%PVP.Probe = Sample
Full size image

Fig. 3
Nano-Drop measurement profile of genomic DNA extractions from Z. mays. DNA
extractions using a Qiagen extraction method. Probe = Sample
Full size image

Table 2 DNA yield and purity range obtained for all sample extracts using the Mericon extraction
method with and without using liquid nitrogen (N)in the extraction

Full size table

Table 3 DNA yield and purity range obtained for all sample extracts using the CTBA-based extraction
method with and without 1%PVP

Full size table

Table 4 DNA yield and purity range obtained for all sample extracts using the Qiagen extraction
method with and without using liquid nitrogen (N) in the extraction

Full size table

Visualizing DNA by agarose gel electrophoresis

In the present study, three different agarose concentrations (1, 1.5 and 2% agarose were used.
The best results were obtained in 1% agarose gel (Fig. 4). Gel electrophoresis revealed a single,
high molecular weight DNA band with little evidence of shearing and absence of RNA
contamination. Figure 5 shows the results of PCR amplification of genomic DNA isolated from
maize using the three different extraction methods. All extracts had positive amplification except
for the CTAB extraction (Lanes 5–8 and 13–16). The DNA samples extracted were appeared as
distinct bands separated on gel at their corresponding high molecular weight. None of the DNA
samples showed significant smearing, which indicates degradation of sample. The present study
also tried to optimize the genomic DNA extraction method by modifying CTAB protocol. NaCl
in extraction buffer is responsible for the removal of proteins and carbohydrates that are attached
to the DNA. The addition of high molar concentrations of NaCl to the extraction buffer (the
original CTAB protocol) increases the solubility of polysaccharides in ethanol, thereby
effectively inhibiting co-precipitation of the polysaccharides together with the DNA [24–26].
Muhammad et al. [27] isolated high quality and quantity of DNA from roots, leaves, and seeds
using modified CTAB protocol. Among all tested NaCl concentrations (0.85, 1.39, 1.71, 2.56,
and 3.42 M), the concentration 2.56 M resulted in the maximum DNA yield from any tissue
source [27]. In this study, however, addition of 2.56 M NaCl to the extraction buffer used in
CTAB method did not help in isolation of useable DNA from the two Z. mays hybrids. In
addition, the maximum yield obtained from seeds was 240 ng/µL [27] while ours was
386.9 ng/µL. During incubation at 65 °C, the extraction solution became brown and became
precipitated; however, no DNA was detected on agarose gel. PVP (1–2% w/v) has been
successfully used in CTAB-based extractions of DNA from plant species to absorb polyphenols
and prevent oxidation of polyphenols, which renders DNA unusable for downstream application
[17, 28]. In this study, however, the addition of 1% PVP to the CTAB extraction method failed
to isolate DNA from both Z. mays hybrids. Although NanoDrop measurements revealed the
absorbance peak at 260 nm, 2% agarose gel electrophoresis did not show a DNA band. The
PCR-amplified DNA fragments of ITS for all samples showed a clean single band product when
examined on an agarose gel (Fig. 5). The PCR products were of about 700 bp.

Fig. 4

Agarose gel electrophoresis showing genomic DNA preparation of two Z. mays hybrids
M10 (lanes 1–4) and M321 (lanes 5–8). DNA extractions using the Mericon extraction
method with different agarose concentrations, 1% (a), 1.5% (b) and 2% g agarose
(c), lane− empty, lane+ positive Probe NTC. M A: λ DNA-HindIII marker, M B and C:
one Kb Marker
Full size image

Fig. 5
Amplified ITS of the plant materials used in the present study. M10 (lanes 1–4) and
M321 (lanes 5–8). Lane M marker GelPilot 100 bp ladder (Qiagen)
Full size image

Conclusion

In this study, three DNA extraction methods were compared to isolate high quality DNA that can
be efficiently amplified using PCR. The mechanical grinding of cells directly in the DNA
isolation buffer was found to be a very simple method and more cost effective than the use of
liquid nitrogen. Among the DNA extraction methods used in this study, the modified Mericon
extraction method was found to be the most efficient in isolating high DNA yield with better
quality from Z. mays hybrids. The DNA extracted using this protocol can be used for whole-
genome sequencing, advanced sequencing technologies, and bioinformatic tools. Our results also
indicated that maize seeds, which gave maximum DNA yield of 386.9 ng/µL, can be used as the
main source of genomic DNA extraction. Interestingly, the addition of 1% PVP to the CTAB–
based extraction method failed to isolate DNA from grains of two Z. mays hybrids.

Abbreviations

ITS:

the internal transcribed spacer

References

1.

Kasem S, Rice N, Henry R. DNA extraction from plant tissue. In: Henry RJ, editor. Plant
genotyping II: SNP technology. Wallingford: CAB International; 2008. p. 219–71.
Google Scholar
2.

Sarwat M, Negi M, Lakshmikumaran M, Tyagi A. A standardized protocol for genomic

DNA isolation from Terminalia arjuna for genetic diversity analysis. Electron J
Biotechnol. 2006;9:86–91.
CAS Article Google Scholar

3.

Braid M, Daniels L, Kitts C. Removal of PCR inhibitors from soil DNA by chemical
flocculation. J Microbiol Methods. 2003;52:389–93.
CAS Article PubMed Google Scholar

4.

Chungwongse J, Martin G, Tanksley S. Pregermination genotypic screening using PCR

amplification of half-seeds. Theor Appl Genet. 1993;86:694–8.
Google Scholar

5.

Kang H, Cho Y, Yoon U, Eun M. A rapid DNA extraction method for RFLP and PCR
analysis from single dry seed. Plant Mol Biol Report. 1998;16:1–9.
Article Google Scholar

6.

Xin Z, Velten J, Oliver M, Burke J. High-throughput DNA extraction method suitable for
PCR. Biotechniques. 2003;34:820–6.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar

7.
 Von Post R, Dayteg C, Nilsson M, Forster B, Tuvesson S. A high-throughput DNA
extraction method for barley seed. Euphytica. 2003;130:255–60.
Article Google Scholar

8.

Inga G, Tamara K, Boris V, Marina K, Nelly D. Application of PCR-based methods for

rapid detection of corn ingredients in processed foods. Int J Nutr Food Sci. 2014;3:199–
202.
Google Scholar

9.

Datukishvili N, Gabriadze I, Kutateladze T, Karseladze M, Vishnepolsky B. Comparative

evaluation of DNA extraction methods for food crops. Int J Food Sci Technol.
2010;45:1316–20.
CAS Article Google Scholar

10.

Datukishvili N, Kutateladze T, Inga G, Bitskinashvili K, Vishnepolsky B. New multiplex

PCR methods for rapid screening of genetically modified organisms in foods. Front
Microbiol. 2015;6:757–65.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

11.

Cheng T, Xu C, Lei L, Li C, Zhang Y, Zhou S. Barcoding the kingdom Plantae: new

PCR primers for ITS regions of plants with improved universality and specificity. Mol
Ecol Resour. 2016;16:138–49.
CAS Article PubMed Google Scholar

12.
 White TJ, Bruns T, Lee S, Taylor J. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal
ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In: Innis MA, Gelfand DH, Sninsky JJ, Whlte
TJ, editors. PCR protocols: a guide to methods and application. San Diego: Academic;
1990. p. 315–22.
Google Scholar

13.

El-Ghareeb DK, Osman GH, El-Baz AF. Isolation, cloning, and overexpression of
vip3Aa gene isolated from a local Bacillus thuringiensis. Biocontrol Sci Technol.
2012;22:11–21.
Article Google Scholar

14.

Murray MG, Thompson WF. Rapid isolation of high molecular weight plant DNA.
Nucleic Acid Res. 1980;8:4321–5.
CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

15.

Abdulla M, Gamal O. Investigation on molecular phylogeny of some date palm (Phoenix

dactylifra L.) cultivars by protein, RAPD and ISSR markers in Saudi Arabia. AJCS.
2010;4:23–8.
CAS Google Scholar

16.

Peterson D, Boehm K, Stack S. Isolation of milligram quantities of nuclear DNA from

tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum), a plant containing high levels of polyphenolic
compounds. Plant Mol Biol Report. 1997;15:148–53.
CAS Article Google Scholar

17.
 Sahu S, Thangaraj M, Kathiresan K. DNA extraction protocol for plants with high levels
of secondary metabolites and polysaccharides without using liquid nitrogen and phenol.
ISRN Mol Biol. 2012;2012:1–6. doi:10.5402/2012/205049.
Article Google Scholar

18.

Khalik KA, Osman G, Al-Amoudi W. Genetic diversity and relationships of some

Ipomoea species based on analysis of RAPD-PCR and SDS-PAGE of seed proteins.
AJCS. 2012;6:1088–93.
Google Scholar

19.

Pervaiz Z, Turi N, Khaliq I, Rabbani M, Malik S. A modified method for high-quality

DNA extraction for molecular analysis in cereal plants. Genet Mol Res J. 2011;10:1669–
73.
CAS Article Google Scholar

20.

Osman GH, Assem SK, Alreedy RM, El-Ghareeb DK, Basry MA, Rastogi A, Kalaji HM.
Development of insect resistance maize plants expressing the chitinase gene
of Spodoptera littoralis. Nat Sci Rep. 2015;5:18067–77.
CAS Article Google Scholar

21.

Holden M, Blasic J, Bussjaeger L, Kao C, Shokere L, Kendall D, Freese L, Jenkins G.

Evaluation of extraction methodologies for corn kernel (Zea mays) DNA for detection of
trace amounts of biotechnology-derived DNA. J Agric Food Chem. 2003;51:2468–74.
CAS Article PubMed Google Scholar

22.
 Abouseadaa HH, Osman GH, Ramadan AM, Hassanein SE, Abdelsattar MT, Morsy YB,
Alameldin HF, El-Ghareeb DK, Nour-Eldin HA, Salem R, Gad AA, Elkhodary SE,
Shehata MM, Mahfouz HM, Eissa HF, Bahieldin A. Development of transgenic wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.) expressing avidin gene conferring resistance to stored product
insects. BMC Plant Biol. 2015;15:183–90.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

23.

Weising K, Nybom H, Wolff K, Kahl G. DNA fingerprinting in plants: principles,

methods and applications. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2005. p. 106–7.
Google Scholar

24.

Ribeiro R, Lovato M. Comparative analysis of different DNA extraction protocols in

fresh and herbarium specimens of the genus Dalbergia. Genet Mol Res. 2007;6:173–87.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar

25.

Osman G, Munshi A, Altf F, Mutawie H. Genetic variation and relationships of Zea

mays and Sorghum species using RAPD-PCR and SDS-PAGE of seed proteins. Afr J
Biotechnol. 2013;12:4269–76.
CAS Article Google Scholar

26.

Khan S, Qureshi M, Kamaluddin A, Abdin M. Protocol for isolation of genomic DNA

from dry and fresh roots of medicinal plants suitable for RAPD and restriction digestion.
Afr J Biotechnol. 2007;6:175–8.
CAS Google Scholar

27. .
 Muhammad I, Zhang T, Wang Y, Zhang C, Qing M, Zhang L, Lin F. Modification of
CTAB protocol for maize. Res J Biotech. 2013;8:41–5.
Google Scholar

28. .

Maliyakal J. An efficient method for isolation of RNA and DNA from plants containing
polyphenolics. Nucleic Acids Res. 1992;20:2381–93.
Article Google Scholar