This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Open AccessArticle
Comparison of Different DNA Isolation Methods from Grapevine (Vitis vinifera) Leaves
by
Nina Buljević
Nina Buljević 1,
Darko Preiner
Darko Preiner 1,2,*
,
Iva Šikuten
Iva Šikuten 1,2
and
Ivana Tomaz
Ivana Tomaz 1,2,*
1
Department of Viticulture and Enology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Svetošimunska 25, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
2
Centre of Excellence for Biodiversity and Molecular Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Separations 2025, 12(11), 316; https://doi.org/10.3390/separations12110316 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 29 September 2025
/
Revised: 3 November 2025
/
Accepted: 5 November 2025
/
Published: 12 November 2025
Abstract
The extraction of high-quality DNA is essential for molecular analyses in grapevine, yet differences among commonly used protocols remain underexplored. This study compared two cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB)-based methods, with and without polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), and three commercial kits (peqGOLD Plant DNA Mini Kit, Qiagen DNeasy Plant Mini Kit, and SPINeasy DNA Kit for Plant MP) using grapevine leaves and other tissues and further validated the CTAB protocol across 34 cultivars. DNA yield, purity, and integrity were assessed spectrophotometrically and by electrophoresis, while PCR suitability was confirmed for all methods. CTAB provided the highest yields and purity at low cost, with densitometry showing approximately 70–85% high-molecular-weight DNA (>20 kb). The Qiagen kit yielded reproducible results with moderate integrity (about 40–60% HMW fraction), making it suitable for high-throughput applications. The MP kit produced high concentrations but severe fragmentation (<10% HMW fraction) due to bead-beating, while the VWR kit performed worst in yield and purity. The addition of PVP improved DNA purity in polyphenol-rich tissues but reduced yield. All protocols generated DNA sufficient for PCR amplification. Overall, CTAB was robust and cost-effective across cultivars and tissues, Qiagen offered speed and reproducibility, and MP provided high concentration at the expense of integrity.
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Buljević, N.; Preiner, D.; Šikuten, I.; Tomaz, I.
Comparison of Different DNA Isolation Methods from Grapevine (Vitis vinifera) Leaves. Separations 2025, 12, 316.
https://doi.org/10.3390/separations12110316
AMA Style
Buljević N, Preiner D, Šikuten I, Tomaz I.
Comparison of Different DNA Isolation Methods from Grapevine (Vitis vinifera) Leaves. Separations. 2025; 12(11):316.
https://doi.org/10.3390/separations12110316
Chicago/Turabian Style
Buljević, Nina, Darko Preiner, Iva Šikuten, and Ivana Tomaz.
2025. "Comparison of Different DNA Isolation Methods from Grapevine (Vitis vinifera) Leaves" Separations 12, no. 11: 316.
https://doi.org/10.3390/separations12110316
APA Style
Buljević, N., Preiner, D., Šikuten, I., & Tomaz, I.
(2025). Comparison of Different DNA Isolation Methods from Grapevine (Vitis vinifera) Leaves. Separations, 12(11), 316.
https://doi.org/10.3390/separations12110316
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details
here.
Article Metrics
Article Access Statistics
For more information on the journal statistics, click
here.
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.