title: Improving molecular detection of fungal DNA in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues: comparison of five tissue DNA extraction methods using panfungal PCR.
abstract: DNA extraction from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues is difficult and requires special protocols in order to extract small amounts of DNA suitable for amplification. Most described methods report an amplification success rate between 60 and 80%; therefore, there is a need to improve molecular detection and identification of fungi in FFPE tissue. Eighty-one archived FFPE tissues with a positive Gomori methenamine silver (GMS) stain were evaluated using five different commercial DNA extraction kits with some modifications. Three different panfungal PCR assays were used to detect fungal DNA, and two housekeeping genes were used to assess the presence of amplifiable DNA and to detect PCR inhibitors. The sensitivities of the five extraction protocols were compared, and the quality of DNA detection (calculated for each kit as the number of housekeeping gene PCR-positive samples divided by the total number of samples) was 60 to 91% among the five protocols. The efficiencies of the three different panfungals used (calculated as the number of panfungal-PCR-positive samples divided by the number of housekeeping gene PCR-positive samples) were 58 to 93%. The panfungal PCR using internal transcribed spacer 3 (ITS3) and ITS4 primers yielded a product in most FFPE tissues. Two of the five DNA extraction kits (from TaKaRa and Qiagen) showed similar and promising results. However, one method (TaKaRa) could extract fungal DNA from 69 of the 74 FFPE tissues from which a housekeeping gene could be amplified and was also cost-effective, with a nonlaborious protocol. Factors such as sensitivity, cost, and labor will help guide the selection of the most appropriate method for the needs of each laboratory.
authors.affiliation: Mycotic Diseases Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Muñoz-Cadavid
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Rudd
authors.forename: S R
authors.initials: SR
authors.lastname: Zaki
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Patel
authors.forename: S A
authors.initials: SA
authors.lastname: Moser
authors.forename: M E
authors.initials: ME
authors.lastname: Brandt
authors.forename: B L
authors.initials: BL
authors.lastname: Gómez
mesh_terms: D004271:DNA, Fungal / Q000235:genetics / Q000302:isolation & purification*; D021903:DNA, Ribosomal Spacer / Q000235:genetics / Q000302:isolation & purification; D005658:Fungi / Q000145:classification / Q000235:genetics / Q000302:isolation & purification*; D006801:Humans; D009181:Mycoses / Q000175:diagnosis*; D016612:Paraffin Embedding; D057089:Pathology, Molecular / Q000379:methods*; D016133:Polymerase Chain Reaction / Q000379:methods*; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D016707:Tissue Fixation
chemical_list: D004271:DNA, Fungal; D021903:DNA, Ribosomal Spacer
references.citation: Clin Infect Dis. 2007 Apr 15;44(8):1078-83
references.pmid: 17366453
references.citation: Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2002 Sep;10(3):269-74
references.pmid: 12373156
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2009 Jun;47(6):1650-6
references.pmid: 19386856
references.citation: Diagn Mol Pathol. 1996 Sep;5(3):220-4
references.pmid: 8866237
references.citation: J Clin Pathol. 2005 Nov;58(11):1180-4
references.pmid: 16254108
references.citation: Cancer Detect Prev. 2003;27(5):397-404
references.pmid: 14585327
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2008 Jul;46(7):2353-8
references.pmid: 18480229
references.citation: J Heart Lung Transplant. 1998 Mar;17(3):321-4
references.pmid: 9563611
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2001 Apr;39(4):1506-9
references.pmid: 11283078
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2003 Jan;41(1):205-8
references.pmid: 12517849
references.citation: J Vet Diagn Invest. 1996 Jan;8(1):68-75
references.pmid: 9026084
references.citation: BMC Clin Pathol. 2004 Feb 12;4(1):1
references.pmid: 15028125
references.citation: Clin Infect Dis. 1996 May;22 Suppl 2:S112-8
references.pmid: 8722837
references.citation: Am J Clin Pathol. 1991 Feb;95(2):117-24
references.pmid: 1846996
references.citation: Mol Pathol. 2003 Dec;56(6):368-70
references.pmid: 14645701
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2007 Feb;45(2):380-5
references.pmid: 17122000
references.citation: Clin Infect Dis. 2006 Jan 1;42(1):51-6
references.pmid: 16323091
references.citation: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2006 Jan;25(1):8-13
references.pmid: 16416267
references.citation: J Clin Pathol. 2005 Aug;58(8):894-5
references.pmid: 16049299
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2002 May;40(5):1644-7
references.pmid: 11980934
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2006 Feb;44(2):340-9
references.pmid: 16455881
references.citation: BMC Genomics. 2006 Dec 12;7:312
references.pmid: 17156491
references.citation: Am J Clin Pathol. 2009 Mar;131(3):364-75
references.pmid: 19228642
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 1999 Dec;37(12):3957-64
references.pmid: 10565914
references.citation: Vet Pathol. 1996 Mar;33(2):176-83
references.pmid: 8801711
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2000 Jun;38(6):2302-10
references.pmid: 10834993