Boiling Method for Minipreps

Martin Kennedy mkennedy at
Thu Aug 5 17:29:03 EST 1993

In article <1993Aug4.221947.9602 at>, Jim Owens <jow at> writes:
> In article <9308032222.AA20703 at> ,
> jchen at CALSHP.CALS.WISC.EDU writes:
>>As a matter of fact, I prefer HB101 as a
>>host because cells are easy to resuspend into the lysozyme buffer.
> Somewhere in my collection of references there is a report about lysozyme
> not being necessary, and even reducing plasmid yield, in some strains of
> _E. coli_.  So I could not help wondering if anyone has tried a boiling
> miniprep without adding lysozyme.

> Good luck,
> Jim Owens


We dropped lysozyme out of our boiling mini-prep procedure a year or two back. 
We always use Bluescript/DH5 alpha combinations, and it works fine.  There was
a suggestion that the yields were slightly down in the absence of lysozyme, but
we still get plenty of DNA (ca 10ug per 1.5ml O/N) and it sequences fine.  This
gives us a really minimal protocol, especially as we use a multiple dispensor
(Eppendorf with Combitip attachment) for the STET and ethanol steps.  I feel
the Bluescript yields are better than pUC, and certainly much better than
pBR322, so I can't vouch for not using lysozyme in all plasmid/host
combinations.  Incidentally, I seem to recall the original Holmes and Quigley
paper stating that the lysozyme was only present to help bring down the lysed
cell debris etc during the centrifugation.



NNNN   NN  Martin A Kennedy (E-mail = mkennedy at  ZZZZZZZ  
NN NN  NN       Cytogenetic and Molecular Oncology Unit          ZZZ
NN  NN NN           Christchurch School of Medicine            ZZZ
NN   NNNN              Christchurch, New Zealand              ZZZZZZZ
		Phone (64-3)364-0880  Fax (64-3)364-750

More information about the Methods mailing list