Comparative Evaluation of Two DNA Extraction Methods for  Molecular Detection of Canine Parvo Virus -2

Authors

  • Saksham Mandawat Department of Veterinary Medicine, Post Graduate Institute of Veterinary Education and Research, RUVAS, Jobner, Jaipur-302031, India.
  • Rashmi Singh Department of Veterinary Medicine, Post Graduate Institute of Veterinary Education and Research (PGIVER), RUVAS, Jaipur-302031, India
  • Jyoti 2Centre for Diagnosis, Surveillance & Response of Zoonotic Diseases, PGIVER, RUVAS, Jaipur-302031, Rajasthan, India
  • Dharm Singh Meena Department of Veterinary Medicine, Post Graduate Institute of Veterinary Education and Research (PGIVER), RUVAS, Jaipur-302031, India
  • Priyanka Meena Department of Veterinary Medicine, Post Graduate Institute of Veterinary Education and Research (PGIVER), RUVAS, Jaipur-302031, India
  • Warsha Choudhary Department of Veterinary Medicine, Post Graduate Institute of Veterinary Education and Research (PGIVER), RUVAS, Jaipur-302031, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48165/ijvsbt.22.3.31

Keywords:

Canine parvovirus-2, DNA extraction, KIT method, Phenol-chloroform-isoamyl alcohol, Molecular diagnostics

Abstract

The molecular detection of Canine Parvo Virus-2 (CPV-2) - a highly contagious and potentially fatal virus in dogs- relies heavily on the  quality and integrity of extracted viral DNA. In this study, we compared and evaluated the efficacy of two DNA extraction methods -  Kit-based (HipurA® DNA stool purification kit) and Phenol-Chloroform-Isoamyl Alcohol (PCI) on 200 clinical faecal samples collected for  CPV-2 detection. All 200 faecal samples were examined through PCR using CPV-2 primer sets. The examination revealed 147 (73.5%)  samples by Kit and 153 (76.5%) samples by PCI positive for CPV-2 at 379 bp. The DNA extracted by both methods was run for agarose  gel electrophoresis. The DNA concentration, purity (A260/280 and A260/230, A280) and overall yield were assessed using a Nanodrop  spectrophotometer. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences between the methods. The PCI method yielded significantly  higher DNA concentration (300.11 ± 87.75 ng/µL) than the Kit method (72.29 ± 25.28 ng/µL; p = 0.016). Protein purity (A260/280 ratio)  was also superior in the PCI method (1.644 ± 0.058) compared to the KIT method (1.374 ± 0.058; p = 0.0028). However, both methods  showed similar salt and organic contamination levels (A260/230), with no significant difference (p = 0.7418). 

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Boom, R., de Jong, A., de Wagter, C., & Leitner, T. (1999). Nucleic acid purification. Methods in Molecular Biology, 134, 177–182.

Desai, D., Kalyani, I., Ramani, U., Makwana, P., Patel, D., & Vala, J. (2020). Evaluation of three different methods of viral DNA extraction for molecular detection of canine parvo virus-2 from faecal samples of dogs. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 8(3), 479–481.

Galla, G., Praeg, N., Rzehak, T., Sprecher, E., Colla, F., Seeber, J., ... & Hauffe, H. C. (2024). Comparison of DNA extraction methods on different sample matrices within the same terrestrial ecosystem. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 8715.

Gand, M., Bloemen, B., Vanneste, K., Roosens, N. H., & De Keersmaecker, S. C. (2023). Comparison of 6 DNA extraction methods for isolation of high yield of high molecular weight DNA suitable for shotgun metagenomics Nanopore sequencing to detect bacteria. BMC Genomics, 24(1), 438.

Ghosh, P., Chowdhury, R., Faisal, K., Khan, M. A. A., Hossain, F., Rahat, M. A., ... & Mondal, D. (2023). Evaluation of a point-of-need molecular diagnostic tool coupled with rapid DNA extraction methods for visceral leishmaniasis. Diagnostics, 13(24), 3639.

Kaur, G., Chandra, M., Dwivedi, P. N., & Sharma, N. S. (2014). Antigenic typing of canine parvovirus using differential PCR. VirusDisease, 25, 481–487.

Khan, D., Thomas, S. A., Tientcheu, P. E., Suso, S. M., Dupont, C., Kwambana-Adams, B., ... & Antonio, M. (2023). Comparison of DNA concentration and bacterial pathogen PCR detection when using two DNA extraction kits for nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal samples. PLOS ONE, 18(8), e0289557.

Kurnosov, A. S., Linde, N. N., Molodtsova, P. A., Glazunova, E. V., Moskalenko, A. M., Sheptulina, A. F., & Zlobovskaya, O. A. (2025). Comparative evaluation of DNA extraction methods from fecal samples: Statistical analysis of commercial kits and laboratory protocols using real-time PCR data. Molecular Biology, 59(6), 1119–1135.

Nandi, S., & Kumar, M. (2010). Canine parvovirus: Current perspective. Indian Journal of Virology, 21, 31–44.

Sambrook, J., & Russell, D. W. (2001). Molecular cloning: A laboratory manual (3rd ed.). Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.

Sloan, S., Jenvey, C. J., Piedrafita, D., Preston, S., & Stear, M. J. (2021). Comparative evaluation of different molecular methods for DNA extraction from individual Teladorsagia circumcincta nematodes. BMC Biotechnology, 21(1), 35.

Wang, Y. S., Dai, T. M., Tian, H., Wan, F. H., & Zhang, G. F. (2019). Comparative analysis of eight DNA extraction methods for molecular research in mealybugs. PLOS ONE, 14(12), e0226818.

Downloads

Published

2026-04-21

Issue

Vol. 22 No. 3 (2026): The Indian Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Biotechnology (IJVSBT) (May-Jun) 2026

Section

Short Communication

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Indian Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Biotechnology

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Mandawat, S., Singh, R., Jyoti, Meena, D. S., Meena, P., & Choudhary, W. (2026). Comparative Evaluation of Two DNA Extraction Methods for  Molecular Detection of Canine Parvo Virus -2. Indian Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Biotechnology, 22(3), 161-163. https://doi.org/10.48165/ijvsbt.22.3.31