Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. 2 (2026)

Comparison of extraction protocols on the productivity of genomic DNA from six Combretum species

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.11457
Submitted
25 August 2025
Published
14-04-2026 — Updated on 21-04-2026
Versions

Abstract

The extraction of substantial amounts of high-quality DNA is frequently a challenge in the genetic analysis of plant traits important to agriculture and biotechnology. The extraction of pure, high-quantity DNA from the leaves of 6 Combretum species was investigated using 3 DNA extraction protocols: cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB), Qiagen and Zymo DNA extraction kits. A modified CTAB method was used for the extraction and purification of sample DNA, while the manufacturers’ instructions were followed for the Qiagen and Zymo kits. The CTAB protocol resulted in DNA with the highest purity reflected by an A260/A280 ratio of 1.9 and a concentration of 900 ng/µL compared to the other methods used. On the other hand, serial dilution of the extraction mixture showed that the more diluted the extraction mixture the lower the concentration of DNA obtained. Among the 6 Combretum species studied, Combretum dolichopetalum Engl. & Diels produced the highest DNA concentration (380 ng/µL), while Combretum bauchiense Hutch. & Dalziel had the highest DNA purity level. The CTAB extraction method produced the best DNA yield and quality for all the Combretum species investigated and can be adopted as a suitable method for Combretum DNA extraction. Similarly, C. dolichopetalum and C. bauchiense can be used for higher DNA yield and quality in further molecular studies.

References

  1. 1. McGaw LJ, Rabe T, Sparg SG, Jäger AK, Eloff JN, Van Staden J. An investigation on the biological activity of Combretum species. J Ethnopharmacol. 2001;75(1):45–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-8741(00)00405-0
  2. 2. Gossan DP, Magid AA, Yao-Kouassi PA, Josse J, Gangloff SC, Morjani H, et al. Antibacterial and cytotoxic triterpenoids from the roots of Combretum racemosum. Fitoterapia. 2016;110:89–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fitote.2016.03.002
  3. 3. Sakhanokho HF, Islam-Faridi N, Smith BJ. Nuclear DNA content and chromosome number determination in a Sahel medicinal plant, Combretum micranthum G. Don. J Crop Improv. 2022;36(6):866–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427528.2022.2030447
  4. 4. Eloff JN, Katerere DR, McGaw LJ. The biological activity and chemistry of the South African Combretaceae. J Ethnopharmacol. 2008;119:686–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2008.07.051
  5. 5. Rahate S, Hemke A, Umekar M. Review on Combretaceae family. Int J Sci Rev Res. 2019;58(2):22–9.
  6. 6. Hills PN, Staden JV, Scott P. An improved DNA extraction procedure for plant tissues with a high phenolic content. S Afr J Bot. 2002;68(4):549–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0254-6299(15)30384-7
  7. 7. Trivedi P, Batista BD, Bazany KE, Singh BK. Plant–microbiome interactions under a changing world: responses, consequences and perspectives. New Phytol. 2022;234:1951–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18016
  8. 8. Besbes N, Fattouch S, Sadok S. Comparison of methods in the recovery and amplificability of DNA from fresh and processed sardine and anchovy muscle tissues. Food Chem. 2011;129(2):665–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.05.002
  9. 9. Corbisier P, Broothaerts W, Gioria S, Schimmel H, Burns M, Baoutina A, et al. Toward metrological traceability for DNA fragment ratios in GM quantification. 1. Effect of DNA extraction methods on the quantitative determination of Bt176 corn by real-time PCR. J Agric Food Chem. 2007;55(9):3249–57. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf062931l
  10. 10. Wang Q, Shen X, Qiu T, Wu W, Li L, Wang Z, et al. Evaluation and application of an efficient plant DNA extraction protocol for laboratory and field testing. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2021;22(2):99–111. https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B2000465
  11. 11. Rodríguez-Riveiro R, Velasco A, Sotelo CG. The influence of DNA extraction methods on species identification results of seafood products. Foods. 2022;11(12):1739. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11121739
  12. 12. Moreira PA, Oliveira DA. Leaf age affects the quality of DNA extracted from Dimorphandra mollis (Fabaceae), a tropical tree species from the Cerrado region of Brazil. Genet Mol Res. 2011;10(1):353–8. https://doi.org/10.4238/vol10-1gmr1030
  13. 13. Cawthorn DM, Steinman HA, Witthuhn RC. Comparative study of different methods for the extraction of DNA from fish species commercially available in South Africa. Food Control. 2011;22:231–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.07.003
  14. 14. Ishfaq M, Qadir MI. A modified CTAB protocol for genomic DNA extraction from Citrus spp. (Orange). J Biotech Res Biochem. 2020;3(2):10–3.
  15. 15. Doyle JJ, Doyle JL. Isolation of plant DNA from fresh tissue. Focus. 1990;12:13–5. https://doi.org/10.2307/2419362
  16. 16. Pereira JC, Chaves R, Bastos E, Leitão A, Guedes-Pinto H. An efficient method for genomic DNA extraction from different molluscs species. Int J Mol Sci. 2011;12(11):8086–95. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms12118086
  17. 17. Košir BA, Lužnik D, Tomič V, Milavec M. Evaluation of DNA extraction methods for reliable quantification of Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Biosensors. 2023;13(4):463. https://doi.org/10.3390/bios13040463
  18. 18. Sambrook J, Russell DW. Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual. New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 2001.
  19. 19. Abdel Latif A, Osman G. Comparison of three genomic DNA extraction methods to obtain high DNA quality from maize. Plant Methods. 2017;13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-016-0152-4
  20. 20. Kasem S, Rice N, Henry R. DNA extraction from plant tissue. In: Plant genotyping II: SNP technology. Wallingford (UK): CABI Publishing; 2008. p. 219–71. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845933821.0219
  21. 21. 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. Aust J Crop Sci. 2012;6(6):1088–93.
  22. 22. Aboul-Maaty NA, Oraby HA. Extraction of high-quality genomic DNA from different plant orders applying a modified CTAB-based method. Bull Nat Res Cent. 2019;43:2–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-019-0066-1
  23. 23. Besbes N, Sáiz-Abajo MJ, Sadok S. Comparative study of DNA extraction to initiate harmonized protocol for a simple method of species identification: fresh and canned tuna case study. CyTA J Food. 2022;20(1):39–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/19476337.2021.2020337
  24. 24. Haque I, Bandopadhyay R, Kunal M. An optimised protocol for fast genomic DNA isolation from high secondary metabolites and gum containing plants. Asian J Plant Sci. 2008;7(3):304–8. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajps.2008.304.308
  25. 25. Tiwari KL, Jadhav SK, Gupta S. Modified CTAB technique for isolation of DNA from some medicinal plants. J Med Plants Res. 2012;6(1):65–73. https://doi.org/10.3923/rjmp.2012.65.73
  26. 26. Chakraborty S, Saha A, Neelavar AA. Comparison of DNA extraction methods for non-marine molluscs: is modified CTAB DNA extraction method more efficient than DNA extraction kits?. 3 Biotech. 2020;10(2):69–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-020-2051-7
  27. 27. Dawe A, Pierre ST, David E, Habtemariam S. Phytochemical constituents of Combretum Loefl. (Combretaceae). Pharm Crops. 2013;4:38–59. https://doi.org/10.2174/2210290601304010038

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.