--- author: Sam White toc-title: Contents toc-depth: 5 toc-location: left layout: post title: PCR - Crassostrea gigas and sikamea Mantle gDNA from Marinellie Shellfish Company - No Multiplex date: '2019-11-21 15:04' tags: - Crassostrea gigas - Crassostrea sikamea - Pacific oyster - Kumamoto - PCR - Apex - gel categories: - 2019 - Miscellaneous --- ### UPDATE 20191125 Since the results I obtained on my [final attempt to get this to work](https://robertslab.github.io/sams-notebook/posts/2019/2019-11-21-PCR---Crassostrea-gigas-and-sikamea-Mantle-gDNA-from-Marinellie-Shellfish-Company---No-Multiplex/) failed, I decided to double-check the primer sequences. Well, I ordered/used the wrong sequences! The two general _Crassostrea spp._ primers ordered were the 28s primers listed in that paper, instead of the cytochrome oxidase primers! I've ordered the correct universal CO primers [which are actually listed in this paper: ([Folmer, O., M. Black, W. Hoeh, R. Lutz & R. Vrijenhoek. 1994. DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome C oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrate. Mol. Mar. Biol. Biotechnol. 3:294–299.](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/15316743_DNA_primers_for_amplification_of_mitochondrial_Cytochrome_C_oxidase_subunit_I_from_diverse_metazoan_invertebrates)) and will re-run this. I'm leaving the original post below for posterity. --- Primers and cycling parameters were taken from this publication: - [Haiyan Wang and Ximing Guo "Identification of Crassostrea ariakensis and Related Oysters by Multiplex Species-Specific PCR," Journal of Shellfish Research 27(3), 481-487, (1 May 2008).](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ximing_Guo/publication/259643859_Identification_of_Crassostrea_ariakensis_and_related_oysters_by_multiplex_species-specific_PCR/links/55c79eb708aeb9756746e35e/Identification-of-Crassostrea-ariakensis-and-related-oysters-by-multiplex-species-specific-PCR.pdf) | SR ID | Primer Name | Sequence | |-------|-------------|----------------------------| | 1727 | COreverse | CAGGGGGCCGTTCGCGGTCAACGCT | | 1726 | COCsi546r | AAGTAACCTTAATAGATCAGGGAACC | | 1725 | COCgi269r | TCGAGGAAATTGCATGTCTGCTACAA | | 1724 | COforward | GGGACTACCCCCTGAATTTAAGCAT | Instead of running a multiplex PCR as before, I ran each set of species-specific primer pairs independently. The COforward/reverse primers should amplify any _Crassostrea spp._ DNA (i.e. a positive control - 697bp) and the other two primers will amplify either _C.gigas_ (Cgi269r - 269bp) or _C.sikamea_ (Csi546r - 546bp). Master mix calcs: | Component | Single Rxn Vol. (uL) | Num. Rxns | Total Volumes (uL) | |------------------------|----------------------|-----------|---------------------------| | DNA | 4 | NA | NA | | 2x Apex Master Mix | 12.5 | 18 | 225 | | COforward (100uM) | 0.15 | 18 | 2.7 | | reverse primer (100uM) | 0.10 | 18 | 1.8 | | H2O | 8.25 | 18 | 148.5 | | | 25 | | Add 21uL to each PCR tube | Cycling params: 95oC for 10mins 30 cycles of: - 95oC 1min - 51oC 1min - 72oC 1min 72oC 10mins Used the GeneRuler DNA Ladder Mix (ThermoFisher) for all gels: ![GeneRuler DNA Ladder Mix](https://github.com/RobertsLab/resources/blob/master/protocols/Commercial_Protocols/ThermoFisher_OgeneRuler_DNA_Ladder_Mix_F100439.jpg?raw=true) --- # RESULTS GEL: _C.gigas_-specific primers: ![Gel image from C.gigas-specific primers](https://github.com/RobertsLab/sams-notebook/blob/master/images/20191121_gel_Cgigas_primers.jpg?raw=true) --- GEL: _C.sikamea_-specific primers: ![Gel image from C.sikamea-specific primers](https://github.com/RobertsLab/sams-notebook/blob/master/images/20191121_gel_Csikamea_primers.jpg?raw=true) --- GEL: _Crassostrea spp._ primers: ![Gel image from Crassostrea species primers](https://github.com/RobertsLab/sams-notebook/blob/master/images/20191121_gel_Crassostrea.sp_primers.jpg?raw=true) --- Well, it looks like the two species-specific reverse primers don't seem to work with the _Crassostrea spp._ forward primer. However, the _Crassostrea spp._, despite the fact that they function properly (in that they amplify in all _Crassostrea_ DNA), they don't produce the expected band size that's mentioned in the paper (697bp). Talking with Steven, I don't think we're going to pursue much more of this.