Advertisement

Validation and application of diphenylamine method for DNA detection into soils and clay minerals

  • Amira Lajmi
  • Isabelle Bourven
  • Emmanuel JousseinEmail author
  • Stéphane Simon
  • Marilyne Soubrand
  • Mounir Mehdioub
Soils, Sec 5 • Soil and Landscape Ecology • Research Article
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Soil provides important ecosystemic services, in particular through its biodiversity, which plays a major role for humans. It is therefore essential to detect and, above all, quantify soil DNA in order to better understand and conserve this biodiversity. However, the techniques commonly used are not specific and do not always allow an easy and reliable detection in complex matrices rich in organic matter. The aim of this article is to develop an effective method to quantify DNA whatever the type of soil matrix.

Materials and methods

Two reference clays (kaolinite and montmorillonite which are ubiquitous in soils but present very different physicochemical properties) and two soils (Cambisols and Andosols with different mineralogy, organic matter content, and properties) were used for this purpose. The developed method, based on the use of diphenylamine with colorimetric detection at 600 nm, was compared to the traditional method (absorption at 260 nm).

Results and discussion

The results highlight the independence of the method in terms of organic matter content or soil type, as well as its simplicity and low cost. It opens up important possibilities of application, such as a better understanding of the interactions between DNA and mineral supports, as well as the effects of mineral species. As an illustration, the method was applied to study the sorption of calf thymus DNA on various substrates with or without humic acid for a specific concentration. DNA sorption has been successfully adjusted by the Langmuir model.

Conclusions

The method is specific and can be easily used in complex matrices commonly found in soils, regardless of the different properties in terms of mineralogical content, presence of organic matter, or physicochemical properties.

Keywords

Clay minerals Detection methodology DNA Soils Sorption 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the PHC Utique programs no. 15G1005 “Geasmines” for the financial support of thesis and Pr. O.L.A. Duzènilfo for her everyday support.

References

  1. Alvarez AJ, Khanna M, Toranzos GA, Stotzky G (1998) Amplification of DNA bound on clay minerals. Mol Ecol 7:775–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bikki SD (2012) Interaction between humic acid and DNA. All Student Theses. 1. University ParkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourven I, Bachellerie G, Costa G, Guibaud G (2015) Evidence of glycoproteins and sulphated proteoglycan-like presence in extracellular polymeric substance from anaerobic granular sludge. Environ Technol 36:2428–2435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bravo-Anaya LM, Rinaudo M, Soltero Martinez F (2016) Conformation and rheological properties of calf-thymus DNA in solution. Polymers 8:51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burton K (1956) A study of the conditions and mechanism of the diphenylamine reaction for the colorimetric estimation of desoxyribonucleic acid. Biochem J 62:315–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cai P, Huang Q, Zhang X, Chen H (2006a) Adsorption of DNA on clay minerals and various colloidal particles from an Alfisol. Soil Biol Bioch 38:471–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cai P, Huang Q, Zhang X (2006b) Microcalorimetric studies of the effects of MgCl2 concentrations and pH on the adsorption of DNA on montmorillonite, kaolinite and goethite. Appl Clay Sci 32:147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chipera SJ, Bish DL (2001) Baseline studies of the clay minerals society source clays: powder x-ray diffraction analyses. Clay Clay Miner 49:398–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chowdhury G, Guengerich FP (2011) Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis of DNA polymerase reaction products. Curr Protoc Nucleic Acid Chem 47:7–16Google Scholar
  10. Courtney MG, Gunsch CK (2017) Adsorption capacity of multiple DNA sources to clay minerals and environmental soil matrices less than previously estimated. Chemosphere 175:45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crecchio C, Stotzky G (1998) Binding of DNA on humic acids: effect on transformation of Bacillus subtilis and resistance to DNase. Soil Biol Bioch 30:1061–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dequiedt S, Lelièvre M, Jolivet C, Saby N, Martin M, Thioulouse J, Lemanceau P (2009) ECOMIC-RMQS: biogéographie microbienne à l’échelle de la France. Etat d’avancement et premiers résultats. Étud Gest Sols 16:219–231Google Scholar
  13. Feng X, Simpson AJ, Simpson MJ (2005) Chemical and mineralogical controls on humic acid sorption to clay mineral surfaces. Org Geochem 36:1553–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frostegard A, Courtois S, Ramisse V, Clerc S, Bernillon D, Le Gall F, Jeannin P, Nesme X, Simonet P (1999) Quantification of bias related to the extraction of DNA directly from soils. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:5409–5420Google Scholar
  15. Glasel JA (1995) Validity of nucleic acid purities monitored by 260nm/280nm absorbance ratios. Biotechniques 18:62–63Google Scholar
  16. Goring CAI, Bartholomew WV (1952) Adsorption of mononucleotides, nucleic acids and nucleo-proteins by clays. Soil Sci 74:149–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greaves MP, Wilson MJ (1969) The adsorption of nucleic acids by montmorillonite. Soil Biol Bioch 1:317–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Her N, Amy G, Sohn J, Von Gunten U (2008) UV absorbance ratio index with size exclusion chromatography (URI-SEC) as an NOM property indicator. J Water Supply Res T 57:289–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jenner A, Timothy G, Aruoma OI, Halliwell B (1998) Measurement of oxidative DNA damage by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry: ethanethiol prevents artifactual generation of oxidized DNA bases. Biochem J 331:365–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Khanna M, Stotzky G (1992) Transformation of Bacillus subtilis by DNA bound on montmorillonite and effect of DNase on the transforming ability of bound DNA. Appl Environ Microb 58:1930–1939Google Scholar
  21. Kriaucionis S, Heintz N (2009) The nuclear DNA base 5-hydroxymethylcytosine is present in Purkinje neurons and the brain. Science 324:929–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuske CR, Banton KL, Adorada DL, Stark PC, Hill KK, Jackson PJ (1998) Small-scale DNA sample preparation method for field PCR detection of microbial cells and spores in soil. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:2463–2472Google Scholar
  23. Lorenz MG, Wackernagel W (1987) Adsorption of DNA to sand and variable degradation rates of adsorbed DNA. Appl Environ Microbiol 53:2948–2952.Google Scholar
  24. Marouf A, Tremblin G (2013) Mémento technique, à l’usage des biologistes et biochimistes. EDP SciencesGoogle Scholar
  25. Ogram A, Sayler GS, Gustin D, Lewis RJ (1988) DNA adsorption to soils and sediments. Environ Sci Technol 22:982–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Paget E, Monrozier LJ, Simonet P (1992) Adsorption of DNA on clay minerals: protection against DNaseI and influence on gene transfer. FEMS Microbiol Lett 97:31–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Paget E, Lebrun M, Freyssinet G, Simonet P (1998) The fate of recombinant plant DNA in soil. Eur J Soil Biol 34:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pietramellara G, Ascher J, Borgogni F, Ceccherini MT, Guerii G, Nannipieri P (2009) Extracellular DNA in soil and sediment: fate and ecological relevance. Biol Fertil Soils 45:219–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Poly F, Chenu C, Simonet P, Rouiller J, Jocteur Monrozier L (2000) Differences between linear chromosomal and supercoiled plasmid DNA in their mechanisms and extent of adsorption on clay minerals. Langmuir 16:1233–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ranjard L, Lejon D, Mougel C, Scherer L, Merdinoglu D, Chaussod R (2003) Sampling strategy in molecular microbial ecology: influence of soil sample size on DNA fingerprinting analysis of fungal and bacterial communities. Environ Microbiol 5:1111–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reanney DC, Gowland PC, Slater JH (1983) Genetic interactions among microbial communities. In: Salter JH, Whittenbury R, Wimpenny JWT (eds) Microbes in their natural environments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 379–421Google Scholar
  32. Recorbet G, Picard C, Normand P, Simonet P (1993) Kinetics of the persistence of chromosomal DNA from genetically engineered Escherichia coli introduced into soil. Appl Environ Microb 59:4289–4294Google Scholar
  33. Remy S, Fulcrand H, Labarbe B, Cheynier V, Moutounet M (2000) First confirmation in red wine of products resulting from direct anthocyanin–tannin reactions. J Sci Food Agric 80:745–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Robe P, Nalin R, Capellano C, Vogel TM, Simonet P (2003) Extraction of DNA from soil. Eur J Soil Biol 39:183–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Romanowski G, Lorenz MG, Wackernagel W (1991) Adsorption of plasmid DNA to mineral surfaces and protection against DNase I. Appl Environ Microbiol 57:1057–1061Google Scholar
  36. Singleton VL, Trousdale EK (1992) Anthocyanin-tannin interactions explaining differences in polymeric phenols between white and red wines. Am J Enol Viticult 43:63–70Google Scholar
  37. Sutlovic D, Gamulin S, Definis-Gojanovic M, Gugic D, Andjelinovic S (2008) Interaction of humic acids with human DNA: proposed mechanisms and kinetics. Electrophoresis 29:1467–1472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tinoco I Jr, Sauer K, Wang JC, Pauglisi JD (2002) Principles and applications in biological sciences. Physical Chemistry, Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  39. Uyguner CS, Bekbolet M (2004) Evaluation of humic acid, chromium (VI) and TiO2 ternary system in relation to adsorptive interactions. Appl Catal B Environ 49:267–275.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2003.12.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Uyguner CS, Bekbolet M (2005) Evaluation of humic acid photocatalytic degradation by UV-VIS and fluorescence spectroscopy. Catal Today 101:267–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vettori C, Calamai L, Yoder M, Stotzky G, Gallori E (1999) Adsorption and binding of AmpliTaq® DNA polymerase on the clay minerals, montmorillonite and kaolinite. Soil Biol Bioch 31:587–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Villain M, Simon S, Bourven I, Guibaud G (2010) The use of a new mobile phase, with no multivalent cation binding properties, to differentiate extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) by size exclusion chromatography (SEC) from biomass used for wastewater treatment. Process Biochem 45:1415–1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Widmer F, Seidler RJ, Watrud LS (1996) Sensitive detection of transgenic plant marker gene persistence in soil microcosms. Mol Ecol 5:603–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wolters V (2001) Biodiversity of soil animals and its function. Eur J Soil Biol 37:221–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Young CC, Burghoff RL, Keim JG, Minak-Berbero V, Lute JR, Hinton SM (1993) Polyvinylpyrrolidone–agarose gel electrophoresis purification of polymerase chain reaction amplifiable DNA from soils. Appl Environ Microbiol 59:1972–1974Google Scholar
  46. Zhou J, Bruns M, Tiedje J (1996) DNA recovery from soils of diverse composition. Appl Environ Microbiol 62:316–322Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PEIRENE-EAU EA 7500Université de LimogesLimoges CedexFrance
  2. 2.Faculté des Sciences de SfaxUniversité de SfaxSfaxTunisia

Personalised recommendations