Skip to content
Home▶ Journals▶ Indian Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Biotechnology▶Archive▶Vol. 22 No. 3 (2026)▶Comparative Evaluation of Two DNA Extraction Methods for…
Indian Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Biotechnology
Indian Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Biotechnology ›
Print ISSN 2394-0247 · Online ISSN 2395-1176
Submit your paper About the journal
Short Communication

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

, , , , ,
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
Published 21 Apr 2026 Vol. 22 No. 3 (2026), pp. 161-163 ● Open access
❝ How to cite 🔗 https://doi.org/10.48165/ijvsbt.22.3.31
Download PDF

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). 

 

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

The full text of this article is available as a PDF.

Download PDF
  1. Boom, R., de Jong, A., de Wagter, C., & Leitner, T. (1999). Nucleic acid purification. Methods in Molecular Biology, 134, 177–182.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Kaur, G., Chandra, M., Dwivedi, P. N., & Sharma, N. S. (2014). Antigenic typing of canine parvovirus using differential PCR. VirusDisease, 25, 481–487.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Nandi, S., & Kumar, M. (2010). Canine parvovirus: Current perspective. Indian Journal of Virology, 21, 31–44.
  10. Sambrook, J., & Russell, D. W. (2001). Molecular cloning: A laboratory manual (3rd ed.). Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.

Looking up citing articles…

    Creative Commons License

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

    Copyright © 2026 Indian Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Biotechnology