Comparison of four nuclear isolation buffers for plant DNA flow cytometry

• Background and Aims DNA flow cytometry requires preparationof suspensions of intact nuclei, which are stained using a DNA-specificfluorochrome prior to analysis. Various buffer formulas weredeveloped to preserve nuclear integrity, protect DNA from degradationand facilitate its stoichiometric staining. Although nuclearisolation buffers differ considerably in chemical composition,no systematic comparison of their performance has been madeuntil now. This knowledge is required to select the appropriatebuffer for a given species and tissue. • Methods Four common lysis buffers (Galbraith's, LB01,Otto's and Tris.MgCl₂) were used to prepare samples from leaftissues of seven plant species (Sedum burrito, Oxalis pes-caprae,Lycopersicon esculentum, Celtis australis, Pisum sativum, Festucarothmaleri and Vicia faba). The species were selected to covera wide range of genome sizes (1·30–26·90pg per 2C DNA) and a variety of leaf tissue types. The followingparameters were assessed: forward (FS) and side (SS) light scatters,fluorescence of propidium iodide-stained nuclei, coefficientof variation of DNA peaks, presence of debris background andthe number of nuclei released from sample tissue. The experimentswere performed independently by two operators and repeated onthree different days. • Key Results Clear differences among buffers were observed.With the exception of O. pes-caprae, any buffer provided acceptableresults for all species. LB01 and Otto's were generally thebest buffers, with Otto's buffer providing better results inspecies with low DNA content. Galbraith's buffer led to satisfactoryresults and Tris.MgCl₂ was generally the worst, although ityielded the best histograms in C. australis. A combined analysisof FS and SS provided a ‘fingerprint’ for each buffer.The variation between days was more significant than the variationbetween operators. • Conclusions Each lysis buffer tested responded to a specificproblem differently and none of the buffers worked best withall species. These results expand our knowledge on nuclear isolationbuffers and will facilitate selection of the most appropriatebuffer depending on species, tissue type and the presence ofcytosolic compounds interfering with DNA staining.