Methods of Mycobacterial DNA Isolation
Methods of Mycobacterial DNA Isolation
Methods of Mycobacterial DNA Isolation
Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic Veterinary Research Institute, Brno, Czech Republic 3 University of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Brno, Czech Republic
ABSTRACT: Mycobacteria cause serious infections in animals and human beings. Huge economic losses on farms are caused by selected species of this wide family. A high risk of transmission of infection from animal to human exists. The knowledge of exact pathogen characteristics is an important factor which can improve quick and adequate healing. Cultivation and determination of phenotype is still the gold standard, but has the disadvantage of taking a long time and also low detection limit. Biochemical characterisation of isolates is not exact, and it is expensive. A more popular method used is the amplification of specific loci by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). For this method, the isolation of sufficient amounts of purified DNA is necessary. In this paper the most frequently used method for DNA isolation from live mycobacterial cells, body fluids, tissues, histological samples and forensic materials are outlined. This paper assists only as guide for these methods, so we describe them briefly. Keywords: Johnes disease; Crohns disease; zoonoses
List of abbreviations : BCG = Bacille Calmette-Gurin; CB18 = C18-carboxypropylbetain; CFU = colony forming units; CPH = N-cetylpyridinium chloride, cerebrospinal fluid; CTAB = cetyltrimethyl ammonium bromide; DNA = deoxyribonucleic acid; DR = direct repeat domain; DTT = dithiotreitol; EDTA = disodium ethylene diamine tetraacetate 2 H2O; FB = freezing and boiling; HIV/AIDS = Human Immune-Deficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome; IgG = class G immunoglobulin; IMS = immunomagnetic separation; IS = insertion sequence; LCM = laser capture micro-dissection; MAC = Mycobacterium avium complex; MOTT = mycobacteria other than tuberculosis; MTC = Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex; NALC = N-acetyl-L-cystein; OTN-PCR = one-tube nested polymerase chain reaction; PBS = phosphate-buffered saline; PCI = phenol-chloroform-isoamylalcohol; PCR = polymerase chain reaction; PRA-PCR = polymerase restriction analysis-polymerase chain reaction; RFLP = restriction fragment length polymorphism; rRNA = ribosomal ribonucleic acid; SDS = sodium dodecyl sulphate; TE = Tris-HCl + EDTA buffer; TLC = thin-layer chromatography; TSA = tuberculostearic acid: 10-methyloktadekan acid
Contents
1. Introduction 2. Isolation of mycobacterial DNA from living mycobacterial cells 2. 1. DNA isolation from mycobacterial isolates 2.1.1. Physical methods 2.1.2. Chemical methods 2.1.3. Combination of physical and chemical methods
2.2. Isolation of mycobacterial DNA from body fluids 2.2.1. Sputum, bronchoalveolar lavages, and bronchial and tracheal aspirates 2.2.2. Semen 2.2.3. Milk 2.2.4. Blood 2.2.5. Cerebrospinal fluid 2.3. Isolation of mycobacterial DNA from tissues 2.4. Isolation of mycobacterial DNA from faeces
Supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (Grant No. 524/03/1532), the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic (Project No. MZE 0002716201), and PathogenCombat (No. FOOD-CT-2005-007081, Brussels, EC).
180
Review Article
3.1.3. Formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded histological sections 3.2. Isolation of mycobacterial DNA from archaeological and forensic samples 4. Conclusions 5. Acknowledgements 6. Reference
1. Introduction
100 species (Tortoli et al., 2001; www.bacterio.cict. fr; www.dsmz.de/bactnom/nam1932.htm); many of them are pathogenic for humans and animals. The best-known human and bovine mycobacterial pathogens being members of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex ( MTC ). It is noteworthy that more than 30 million cases of tuberculosis have been registered across the world at the beginning of the 21st century. An annual occurrence of new cases and a mortality rate of over 8 million and 2 million, respectively (Savic et al., 1992; www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/who104/en/). Other well known mycobacteria are members of M. avium complex (MAC; include M. a. avium and M. a. hominissuis), and atypical (conditionally pathogenic) mycobacteria like M. kansasii, M. xenopi, and others (Wayne and Kubica, 1986; Murray et al., 2002). Rapid detection of current infection is extremely important for early therapy, or for control measures in human and animal populations, respectively. For example, the diseases caused by members of MAC, causing avian tuberculosis and mycobacteriosis, became more important in recent years, particularly in association with the worldwide pandemic situation caused by HIV/AIDS (Pavlik et al., 2000b; Dvorska et al., 2001; Mijs et al., 2002). Besides HIVpositive patients, people with impaired immunity due to other factors (cytostatic or immunosuppressant treated patients, alcoholics, drug addicted individuals, and diabetics) rank among the most threatened groups. The major cause of detected mycobacterial infection is due to the members of the MAC (Garriga et al., 1999; Pavlik et al., 2000b). In such cases rapid and accurate diagnosis is essential, and adequate treatment may be initiated in order to prevent further transmission. Early detection of the causal agent in farm animals is important for the elimination of infected
The genu s Mycobacterium comprises of over
animals from a herd, adopting adequate measures to localize outbreaks of infection and consequently to reduce the risk posed by animal products that might be sources of infection for humans. For example, M. a. paratuberculosis, the causal agent of paratuberculosis or Johnes disease in ruminants, is difficult to control after late detection in the herd (Pavlik et al., 2000a; Ikonomopoulos et al., 2004). Isolation of mycobacteria and their identification based on phenotypical manifestations, particularly culture, has been constantly used as a golden standard (Taylor et al., 2001). Due to the fact that these methods are much more time consuming, their use is on the decline. They have been replaced by methods based on DNA detection. Selection of an adequate isolation method of mycobacterial DNA is essential for being successful in the following detection steps. The optimum method is different for each sample type. Various comparative studies, e.g. by Wards et al. (1995), have been beneficial. The purpose of the present study is to review the DNA isolation methods currently used, followed by PCR analysis, which has become one of the most critical diagnostic tools besides culture examination, usually used in the laboratory.
Review Article
to a number of lysis buffers (Wards et al., 1995; Cornejo et al., 1998; Murray et al., 2002).
Review Article
sensitivity level was detected for PCR (95%); however, the highest specificity was found with direct microscopy (100%). The lowest sensitivity (55%) and specificity (87%) were found for TSA detection using gas chromatography. Samples of bronchial lavages are commonly examined in human medicine. Precipitation of samples with 1M NaOH followed by centrifugation performed well for isolation of DNA from mycobacteria (Hidaka et al., 2000). The pellet is subsequently re-suspended in a lysis buffer, supplemented with RNase and proteinase K. After an overnight incubation, phenol-chloroform extraction and alcohol precipitation were conducted. Hidaka et al. (2000) compared sensitivity of PCR-RFLP examination of samples obtained by bronchoscopy (tissue collected with a brush was re-suspended in saline and processed as a lavage), bronchial lavages and combinations of the methods. They found out that the sensitivity of the reaction was the best for the combination of brushed and washed samples. Besides sputum, Vuorinen et al. (1995) tested bronchoalveolar lavages and bronchial and tracheal aspirates, and compared Z iehl-Nielsen staining with Amplicor and Gene-Probe amplified M. tuberculosis direct tests. All three methods had comparable specificity (about 99%); however, a higher sensitivity was found for the commercial kits (about 84%).
2.2.2. Semen
Ahmed et al. (1999) recovered M. bovis BCG from experimentally inoculated bull semen. Samples were centrifuged; the obtained pellet was frozen in liquid nitrogen and subsequently heated. The cells were lysed with lysozyme and deproteinated with proteinase K, SDS, and CTAB. The suspension was then treated with a PCI method and DNA precipitated with isopropanol. This resulted in the detection of 10 to 100 CFU/ml per sample. For the isolation of DNA from naturally infected bull semen, Ayele et al. (2004) used a commercial kit (QIAamp DNA Mini Kit; QIAGEN, Germany). The IS900 was employed to determine the presence of M. a. paratuberculosis by PCR. The modifications made were an extension of the amplification of 60 cycles, and the use of Hot-Start Taq PCR Master Mix Kit (QIAGEN, Germany). This modification enabled the recognition of 1 to 10 genome units in a single reaction.
183
2.2.4. Blood
Ahmed et al. (1998) has tested the potential detection ability of M. tuberculosis DNA from the blood of patients with localised pulmonary tuberculosis. After osmotic lysis of erythrocytes, leucocytes were centrifuged, frozen in liquid nitrogen and heated to 100C for 10 min. Cell lysis was induced with lysozyme, proteinase K, and hexadecyl-triammonium bromide. DNA was purified using chloroform extraction. The authors ascertained that they detected less than 10 copies of mycobacterial DNA per 5 ml of blood. However, the detection in blood can only be successfully performed in immunocompromised patients ( HIV -positive, alcoholics, and diabetics) where
184
Review Article
step. Although the method using glass powder (Geneclean, Qbiogene, USA) was likewise very effective, it was not markedly better than CTAB alone, and moreover, it was laborious and time consuming. The procedure finally adopted to isolate mycobacterial DNA is described below. Homogenates were digested at 60C with proteinase K for 1.5 to 2 hours. After digestion, PBS with 0.05% Tween 80 was added. Following centrifugation, the pellet was treated with proteinase K and 20% SDS for 1 h at 60C. The suspension was mixed with CTAB in NaCl and incubated at 65C for 10 min. After cooling, DNA was extracted with PCI and precipitated with tRNA and ethanol. The combination of lysis buffer (1% Triton X-100, 10mM EDTA, 3mM dithiotreitol, 10mM Tris HCl, pH 7.5) and treatment of supernatant obtained by centrifugation, using Subtilisine, lysozyme and pronase with SDS (Sanderson et al., 1992) can be used for DNA recovery from tissues. This method was used for the detection of M. a. paratuberculosis from human intestinal tissue. DNA can be further extracted from tissue homogenates of the lymph nodes with zirconium beads, sonication, and proteinase K as proven by Taylor et al. (2001). DNA isolation from the cell lysate was subsequently performed with biotin labelled oligonucleotides complementary to the DR domain of M. tuberculosis genome. They separated labelled denaturised DNA using streptavidine bound magnetic beads. Isolation of genomic DNA of M. a. paratuberculosis from intestinal mucosa and the cortical portion of mesenteric lymph nodes was described by Sivakumar et al. (2005). At rst they homogenised samples in TE buer and took up the supernatant after it settled. Lysozyme was added, and mixture was incubated at 37C for 2 hours. Then, 10% SDS and proteinase K were added and incubated at 56C overnight (16 to 20 hours). Digested samples were mixed with 5 M potassium acetate and centrifuged. The DNA was puried from the supernatant by PCI extraction. The DNA was precipitated from the aqueous phase by addition of 1/10 volume of cold 3 M sodium acetate and 2.5 volumes of absolute ethanol.
Review Article
last materials is difficult. For example Garrido et al. (2000) processed sheep faecal samples by means of different isolation procedures and measured the PCR sensitivity. They selected M. a. paratuberculosis and its insertion element IS900 as a model. Samples were homogenized in different concentrations of SDS or N-cetylpyridinium chloride (CPH). After sedimentation, the upper phase was collected and washed three times with PBS. The following methods were compared for their efficiency of cell disintegration: enzymatic (lysozyme, proteinase K), physical (freezing and boiling = FB), chemical (guanidine, Triton X-100), and their combinations. Testing different concentrations of SDS and CPH by the FB method, 5% SDS showed the best results. The other extraction methods did not yield a detectable amount of DNA. Phenol-chloroform extraction was excluded because it was time consuming and toxic. Despite lower amounts of DNA obtained by the FB method in comparison with xylene extraction (Challans et al., 1994), which was used as reference method, the number of positive results obtained by the FB method was higher. Comparison of various types of chemical treatment combined with physical methods, most DNA with the highest purity was obtained using FB method and by treatment of samples with TE/Triton X-100. These results were also confirmed by obtaining higher yields using PCR. Sensitivity of isolation of mycobacteria was detected by adding a known amount of mycobacteria to faeces where the lowest detectable amount was 50 bacteria per gram of material. Sensitivity and specificity of FB protocol was 94.1% and 92.3%, respectively. Identical specificity (92.3%) was obtained using xylene, but sensitivity rapidly decreased to 41.2%. The authors viewed the FB PCR method as too expensive for routine use in the eradication programmes and primarily recommend it for research conditions.
3. Isolation of mycobacterial DNA from dead mycobacterial cells 3.1.1. Formalin-fixed tissues for anatomical dissection
Bartos et al. (2006) have studied the presence of mycobacteria in tissue samples from four cadavers fixed with formalin and tissue samples from a recently deceased unpreserved individual who had a
186
Review Article
ever, without phenol chloroform extraction and supplementation with 0.5% Tween 20. Using this method the former authors were able to identify 20 mycobacterial genomes per reaction.
Review Article
Table 1. Summary of described methods Material Boiling Enzymes, silicon beads, sonication Mycobacterial isolates Methods of isolation
PCR sensitivity or detection limit n/a 95% 100% if >100 CFU/ml cumulative detection limit was 100% n/a n/a 7091% 10100 CFU/ml n/a 0.11.0 cell n/a n/a 83.3% 0.22.0 genomes
References Tortoli et al. (2001), Svastova et al. (2002) Savic et al. (1992) Hill et al. (1972), Pierre et al. (1991) Garriga et al. (1999) Ausubel et al. (2002), Somerville et al. (2005) Fukushima et al. (2003) Hidaka et al. (2000) Ahmed et al. (1999) Ayele et al. (2004) Antognoli et al. (2001) Ahmed et al. (1998) Naser et al. (2004) Kaneko et al. (1990) Wards et al. (1995)
Proteinase K (+SDS), NaOH + CTAB, PCI extraction NaOH + heating 95C Heating, lysozyme + SDS + proteinase K, chloroform-isoamyl alcohol precipitation
Proteinase K+ SDS, heating 65C, PCI extraction Sample precipitation with 1N NaOH, RNase + proteinase K, PCI precipitation
Semen-experimentally FB, lysozyme + proteinase K, SDS + infected CTAB, PCI precipitation Semen-naturally Commercial kit infected Milk Blood Cerebrospinal uid Immunomagnetic DNA separation FB, lysozyme + proteinase K + hexadecyltriammonium bromide, chloroform extraction TE-boiling, PCI extraction SDS + proteinase K, phenol-chloroform extraction Proteinase K, Tween 80, SDS, CTAB, PCI extraction Tissues-fresh
Triton X-100 + EDTA + DTT, Suptilisin + 10 fg of M. avium subsp. Sanderson et al. lysozyme + pronase + SDS paratuberculosis DNA (1992) Zirconium beads, sonication, proteinase K, immunomagnetic separation of DNA Lysozyme + SDS + proteinase K, PCI extraction 93% (conventional PCR), Taylor et al. (2001) 71% LightCycler PCR 230 cells/g of spiked tissue n/a 88.2% 90% 100% n/a n/a 50 cells/g Sivakumar et al. (2005) Bartos et al. (2006) Whittington et al. (1999) Marchetti et al. (1998) Ryan et al. (2002) Hagelberg (1994) Zink et al. (2005) Garrido et al. (2000)
Tissues-formalin-xed Enzymes, silicon beads Tissues-paran blocks Tissue-histological sections Bones Faeces 0.5% Tween 20, FB Xylene, SDS + proteinase K, phenol-chloroform extraction Laser micro-dissection, isolation of DNA by commercial kit EDTA, proteinase K + 0,5% N-lauroylsarkosine K, phenol-chloroform extraction EDTA, proteinase K + guanidium thiocyanate, silica beads FB, TE/Triton X-100
SDS = sodium dodecyl sulphate, CTAB = cetyltrimethyl ammonium bromide, PCI = phenol-chloroform-isoamylalcohol, FB = freezing and boiling, EDTA = disodium ethylene diamine tetraacetate 2 H 2O, DTT = dithiotreitol, TE = Tris-HCl + EDTA buer; n/a = not available
188
Review Article
polymorphism or the inability of the methods to identify dead microorganisms. Advances in molecular biology offer the most promising methods for the future. Novel methods being developed are more and more rapid and accurate. Such methods will make it possible to reveal the dangerous mycobacterial diseases much more effectively and to initiate early, adequate and effective treatment of the diseases.
5. Acknowledgements
From Veterinary Research Institute (Brno, Czech Republic) Anna Maslanova and Zdenka Gregorova are acknowledged for finding of all literature, Ing. Ludmila Faldikova for the assistance with the translation to the English and Mgr. Maria Vass (Swinburne University of Technology, Victoria, Australia) for critical reading of the manuscript.
6. REFERENCES
Ahmed N., Mohanty A.K., Mukhopadhyay U., Batish V.K., Grover S. (1998): PCR-Based rapid detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in blood from immunocompetent patients with pulmonary tuberculosis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 36, 30943095. Ahmed N., Khan J.R., Ganai N.A. (1999): DNA amplification assay for rapid detection of bovine tubercle bacilli in semen. Animal Reproduction Science, 57, 1521. Aldous W.K., Pounder J.I., Cloud J.L., Woods G.L. (2005): Comparison of six methods of extracting Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA from processed sputum for testing by quantitative real-time PCR. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 43, 24712473. Antognoli M.C., Salman M.D., Triantis J., Hernandez J., Keefe T. (2001): A one-tube nested polymerase chain reaction for the detection of Mycobacterium bovis in spiked milk samples: an evaluation of concentration and lytic techniques. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, 13, 111113. Ausubel F., Brent R., Kingston R.E., Moore D.D., Seidman J.G, Smith J.A., Struhl K. (eds.) (2002): Short Protocols in Molecular Biology, 5th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, USA. Ayele W.Y., Bartos M., Svastova P., Pavlik I. (2004): Distribution of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis in organs of naturally infected bull-calves and breeding bulls. Veterinary Microbiology, 103, 209217.
4. Conclusions
Methods for the detection of mycobacteria are continuously being developed. Scientists from all over the world try to propose a rapid, accurate and low-cost test. However, we can generally say that a universal isolation and detection method does not exist. Most of the methods can only be used for a limited spectrum of applications, or they are technologically demanding and time consuming. The majority of workplaces have developed their own isolation procedures during long-years of experience. Accordingly, it was not possible to encompass all of them into the present study. Nevertheless, commercially available isolation kits are more and more in use. It is possible to impartially compare the results obtained by those kits in different laboratories. The presence of mycobacterial DNA is most commonly detected by PCR technique. The character of the produced amplicons is subsequently tested on agarose gel. For further typing, hybridisation with specific probes, spoligotyping, RFLP or direct sequencing is used. However, certain inaccuracies also exist with these procedures, given by natural
189
Review Article
Ayele W.Y., Svastova P., Roubal P., Bartos M., Pavlik I. (2005): Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis cultured from locally and commercially pasteurized cows milk in the Czech Republic. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 71, 12101214. Barry T., Glennon M., Smith T., Gannon F. (1993): Detection of Mycobacterium bovis in bovine blood by combined PCR and DNA probe methods. The Veterinary Record, 132, 6667. Bartos M., Hlozek P., Svastova P., Dvorska L., Bull T., Matlova L., Parmova I., Kuhn I., Stubbs J., Moravkova M., Kintr J., Beran V., Melicharek I., Ocepek M., Pavlik I. (2006): Identification of members of Mycobacterium avium species by Accu-Probes, serotyping, and single IS900, IS901, IS1245 and IS901-flanking region PCR with internal standards. Journal of Microbiological Methods, 64, 333345. Beavis K.G., Lichty M.B., Jungkind D.L., Giger O. (1995): Evaluation of Amplicor PCR for direct detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from sputum specimens. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 33, 25822586. Brosch R., Gordon S.V., Marmiesse M., Brodin P., Buchrieser C., Eiglmeier K., Garnier T., Gutierrez C., Hewinson G., Kremer K., Parsons L.M., Pym A.S., Samper S., Van Soolingen D., Cole S.T. (2002): A new evolutionary scenario for the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99, 36843689. Challans J.A., Stevenson K., Reid H.W., Sharp J.M. (1994): A rapid method for detection and extraction of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis from clinical specimens. Veterinary Record, 134, 9596. Cornejo B.J., Sahagun-Ruiz A., Suarez-Guemes F., Thornton C.G., Ficht T.A., Adams L.G. (1998): Comparison of C-18-carboxypropylbetaine and glass bead DNA extraction methods for detection of Mycobacterium bovis in bovine milk samples and analysis of samples by PCR. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 64, 30993101. Donoghue H.D., Marcsik A., Matheson C., Vernon K., Nuorala E., Molto J.E., Greenblatt C.L., Spigelman M. (2005): Co-infection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Mycobacterium leprae in human archaeological samples: a possible explanation for the historical decline of leprosy. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 272, 389394. Dvorska L., Bartos M., Martin G., Erler W., Pavlik I. (2001): Strategies for differentiation, identification and typing of medically important species of mycobacteria by molecular methods. Veterinarni Medicina, 46, 309328. http://www.vri.cz/docs/vetmed/46-12-309. pdf
190
Review Article
terium avium complex strains isolated from birds, animals, humans and environment and virulence for poultry. Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, 7, 212217. Paabo S. (1985): Molecular cloning of ancient Egyptian mummy DNA. Nature, 314, 644645. Pierre C., Lecossier D., Boussougant Y., Bocart D., Joly V., Yeni P., Hance A.J. (1991): Use of a reamplification protocol improves sensitivity of detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in clinical samples by amplification of DNA. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 29, 712717. Popper H.H., Winter E., Hofler G. (1994): DNA of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in formalin-fixed, paraffinembedded tissue in tuberculosis and sarcoidosis detected by polymerase chain reaction. American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 101, 738741. Rodriguez J.C., Fuentes E., Royo G. (1997): Comparison of two different PCR detection methods. Application to the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis. APMIS, 105, 612616. Rothschild B.M., Martin L.D., Lev G., Bercovier H., BarGal G.K., Greenblatt C., Donoghue H., Spigelman M., Brittain D. (2001): Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex DNA from an extinct bison dated 17 000 years before the present. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 33, 305311. Ryan P., Bennett M.W., Aarons S., Lee G., Collins J.K., OSullivan G.C., OConnell J., Shanahan F. (2002): PCR detection of Mycobacterium paratuberculosis in Crohns disease granulomas isolated by laser capture microdissection. Gut, 51, 665670. Salo W.L., Aufderheide A.C., Buikstra J., Holcomb T.A. (1994): Identification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA in a pre-Columbian Peruvian mummy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 91, 20912094. Sanderson J.D., Moss M.T., Tizard M.L.V., Hermon-Taylor J. (1992): Mycobacterium paratuberculosis DNA in Crohns disease tissue. Gut, 33, 890896. Savic B., Sjobring U., Alugupalli S., Larsson L., Miorner H. (1992): Evaluation of polymerase chain reaction, tuberculostearic acid analysis, and direct microscopy for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in sputum. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 166, 11771180. Schirm J., Oostendorp L.A., Mulder J.G. (1995): Comparison of Amplicor, in-house PCR, and conventional culture for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in clinical samples. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 33, 32213224. Sensabaugh G.F. (1994): DNA Typing of biological evidence material. In: Herrmann B., Mummel S. (eds.):
191
Review Article
Ancient DNA. Springer-Verlag New. York Inc., New York, USA. 141146. Sivakumar P., Tripathi B.N., Singh N. (2005): Detection of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis in intestinal and lymph node tissues of water buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) by PCR and bacterial culture. Veterinary Microbiology, 108, 263270. Sola C., Filliol I., Legrand E., Rastogi N. (2000): Recent developments of spoligotyping as applied to the study of epidemiology, biodiversity and molecular phylogeny of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (in French). Pathologie Biologie, 48, 92132. Somerville W., Thibert L., Schwartzman K., Behr M.A. (2005): Extraction of Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA: a question of containment. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 43, 29962997. Spigelman M. (1994): Studying ancient DNA. British Medical Journal, 308, 1370. Svastova P., Pavlik I., Bartos M. (2002): Rapid differentiation of Mycobacterium avium subsp. avium and Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis by amplication of insertion element IS901. Veterinarni Medicina, 47, 117121. http:// www.vri.cz/docs/vetmed/47-5-117.pdf Taylor G.M., Crossey M., Saldanha J.A., Waldron T. (1996): Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacterial DNA in medieval human skeletal remains using polymerase chain reaction. Journal of Archaeological Science, 23, 789798. Taylor M.J., Hughes M.S., Skuce R.A., Neill S.D. (2001): Detection of Mycobacterium bovis in bovine clinical specimens using real-time uorescence and uorescence resonance energy transfer probe rapid-cycle PCR. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 39, 12721278. Tortoli E., Nanetti A., Piersimoni C., Cichero P., Farina C., Mucignat G., Scarparo C., Bartolini L., Valentini
Corresponding Authors: RNDr. Milan Bartos, Ph.D., GENEX CZ, s.r.o, Podstranska 74, 627 00 Brno, Czech Republic E-mail: [email protected] Prof. MVDr. Ivo Pavlik, CSc., Veterinary Research Institute, Hudcova 70, 621 32 Brno, Czech Republic Tel. +420 533 331 601, fax +420 541 211 229, e-mail: [email protected]
192