Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Research Notes

Open Access

Identification of Streptococcus parasanguinis DNA contamination in human buccal DNA samples

BMC Research Notes20136:481

https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-6-481

Received: 7 May 2013

Accepted: 14 November 2013

Published: 22 November 2013

Abstract

Background

The use of buccal swabs in clinical and scientific studies is a very popular method of collecting DNA, due to its non-invasive nature of collection. However, contamination of the DNA sample may interfere with analysis.

Findings

Here we report the finding of Streptococcus parasanguinis bacterial DNA contamination in human buccal DNA samples, which led to preferential amplification of bacterial sequence with PCR primers designed against human sequence.

Conclusion

Contamination of buccal-derived DNA with bacterial DNA can be significant, and may influence downstream genetic analysis. One needs to be aware of possible bacterial contamination when interpreting abnormal findings following PCR amplification of buccal swab DNA samples.

Findings

Buccal swabs are a popular, inexpensive and non-invasive method of collecting DNA samples. It is a convenient procedure for collecting DNA from geographically isolated populations for larger cohort studies [1], and has the advantage of avoiding the stressful process of venepuncture. When using buccal swab DNA, sampling or processing considerations may be important for obtaining optimal results [2]. If buccal swabs are not collected and/or handled properly, potential complications may occur during subsequent analysis [3]. Problems that can affect the interpretation include contamination, degradation, and insufficient yield [46]. Here we report a significant Streptococcus parasanguinis DNA contamination in human buccal-derived DNA. This bacteria is the most abundant microorganism in the mouth, and a primary colonizer of human tooth surfaces [7, 8] that plays an important role in dental plaque formation [9, 10].

Contamination was detected during mutation screening of the Desmoplakin (DSP) gene in buccal DNA of Bladder Exstrophy Epispadias Complex (BEEC) patients. Use of samples for research was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Royal Children’s Hospital (Approval Number# HREC28140A), Melbourne, Australia. Informed consent was also obtained from the patients or parents/guardians. The intention was to screen DSP exon 4 for potential sequence variants using High Resolution Melting (HRM) and Sanger Sequencing. For this, we designed exon-specific forward (5′ CTGTTTTCCTGCAGTGGTT 3′) and reverse (5′ TGGCCTGCACAGGTTTG 3′) primers, predicted to generate a 254 bp product. HRM was performed on 22 samples as previously described [11]. Five samples gave aberrant curves with HRM (Figure 1), and agarose gel analysis showed the presence of two bands in matching samples (Figure 2). Sanger sequence analysis showed that the 153 bp fragment did not align with any human sequence. Alignment with other organisms showed 98% identity with Streptococcus parasanguinis plasmid pFW213 [GenBank:EU685104.1] (Figure 3).
Figure 1

High Resolution Melt (HRM) analysis of PCR products from human buccal-derived DNA samples. The aberrant HRM curves are due to contamination with Streptococcus parasanguinis DNA.

Figure 2

Gel electrophoresis of the PCR products shown in Figure 1. The expected product from the human DNA is 254 bp, with the 153 bp product matching Streptococcus parasanguinis DNA.

Figure 3

Alignment of the 153 bp PCR product with the Streptococcus parasanguinis plasmid pFW213 reference sequence. The sequences corresponding to the PCR primers are indicated in bold.

To our knowledge, there have been no previous reports of Streptococcus parasanguinis contamination affecting genetic analysis of buccal swab DNA. It is not unexpected to have Streptococcal DNA contamination in DNA from a human buccal swab, due to the high abundance in oral microflora [12, 13]. In addition, when a buccal sample is collected, researchers generally do not enquire whether there is any oral disease. This might influence the quality of DNA isolated from buccal swabs. Under such circumstances, a blood sample may be a preferable method for obtaining DNA. A comparison of blood- and buccal-derived DNA from a Danish nurse cohort has previously been reported. 100% of the blood-derived DNA samples could be genotyped or PCR amplified, whereas only 23% of the DNA samples from mouth swabs could be PCR amplified and none of the swab-derived DNA samples could be genotyped [14].

Our finding demonstrates that bacterial contamination may be a significant contributor to the total amount of DNA isolated from a buccal swab, and may explain why an apparently sufficient quantity of high quality DNA does not perform as expected in human-specific PCR amplifications.

Authors’ information

Wei Cheng and Stefan J White: Joint senior authors.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Royal Children Hospital, Melbourne, Sick Kids, Toronto and Hostal Universitario La Paz, Madrid for providing the DNA samples. Research in the authors’ laboratories is supported by the Jack Brockhoff Foundation, the Helen Macpherson Smith Trust, the Marian and E. H. Flack Trust, and Monash University. MIMR receives funding from the Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program. IM is supported by a Monash Graduate Scholarship (MGS) and Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Science International Postgraduate Scholarship (MIPS).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Centre for Genetic Diseases, Monash Institute of Medical Research, Monash University
(2)
Department of Paediatrics, Southern Medical School, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University
(3)
Department of Surgery, Southern Medical School, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University
(4)
Department of Surgery, Beijing United Family Hospital

References

  1. Freeman B, Powell J, Ball D, Hill L, Craig I, Plomin R: DNA by mail: an inexpensive and noninvasive method for collecting DNA samples from widely dispersed populations. Behav Genet. 1997, 27 (3): 251-257. 10.1023/A:1025614231190.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Walker AH, Najarian D, White DL, Jaffe JF, Kanetsky PA, Rebbeck TR: Collection of genomic DNA by buccal swabs for polymerase chain reaction-based biomarker assays. Environ Health Perspect. 1999, 107 (7): 517-520. 10.1289/ehp.99107517.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Collecting a Buccal Swab – An Art or a Cinch?.http://www.hitdna.com/images/PDFs/publications/TakingaBuccalSwab.pdf,
  4. Beckett SM, Laughton SJ, Pozza LD, McCowage GB, Marshall G, Cohn RJ, Milne E, Ashton LJ: Buccal swabs and treated cards: methodological considerations for molecular epidemiologic studies examining pediatric populations. Am J Epidemiol. 2008, 167 (10): 1260-1267. 10.1093/aje/kwn012.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Walsh DJ, Corey AC, Cotton RW, Forman L, Herrin GL, Word CJ, Garner DD: Isolation of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) from saliva and forensic science samples containing saliva. J Forensic Sci. 1992, 37 (2): 387-395.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Zayats T, Young TL, Mackey DA, Malecaze F, Calvas P, Guggenheim JA: Quality of DNA extracted from mouthwashes. PLoS One. 2009, 4 (7): e6165-10.1371/journal.pone.0006165.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Tinanoff N, Gross A, Brady JM: Development of plaque on enamel. Parallel investigations. J Periodontal Res. 1976, 11 (4): 197-209. 10.1111/j.1600-0765.1976.tb00071.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Socransky SS, Manganiello AD, Propas D, Oram V, van Houte J: Bacteriological studies of developing supragingival dental plaque. J Periodontal Res. 1977, 12 (2): 90-106. 10.1111/j.1600-0765.1977.tb00112.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlsson J, Grahnen H, Jonsson G, Wikner S: Establishment of Streptococcus sanguis in the mouths of infants. Arch Oral Biol. 1970, 15 (12): 1143-1148. 10.1016/0003-9969(70)90005-1.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Jenkinson HF, Lamont RJ: Streptococcal adhesion and colonization. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1997, 8 (2): 175-200. 10.1177/10454411970080020601.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. de Boer CM, Eini R, Gillis AM, Stoop H, Looijenga LH, White SJ: DICER1 RNase IIIb domain mutations are infrequent in testicular germ cell tumours. BMC Res Notes. 2012, 5: 569-10.1186/1756-0500-5-569.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. The Human Microbiome Project Consortium: Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature. 2012, 486 (7402): 207-214. 10.1038/nature11234.PubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Rudney JD, Chen R, Zhang G: Streptococci dominate the diverse flora within buccal cells. J Dent Res. 2005, 84 (12): 1165-1171. 10.1177/154405910508401214.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Hansen TV, Simonsen MK, Nielsen FC, Hundrup YA: Collection of blood, saliva, and buccal cell samples in a pilot study on the Danish nurse cohort: comparison of the response rate and quality of genomic DNA. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007, 16 (10): 2072-2076. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0611.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Mahfuz et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement