ArticleYonsei medical journal2010
Comparisons of three automated systems for genomic DNA extraction in a clinical diagnostic laboratory.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-Read Sequencing: The Third Generation of Diagnostic Testing for Dystonia.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2025Review
- Chemical contamination in the extracted DNA affects the results of HLA typing by the PCR-SSOP method.Molecular biology reports · 2024Article
- Comparison of four DNA extraction kits efficiency for 16SrDNA microbiota profiling of diverse human samples.Future science OA · 2023Article
- Investigation of the effects of mir-219-1 gene variants on the development of disease in non-small cell lung cancer patients.African health sciences · 2022Article
- NGS-based targeted sequencing identified two novel variants in Southwestern Chinese families with oculocutaneous albinism.BMC genomics · 2022Article
- The Utilization of Linear Polylysine Coupled with Mechanic Forces to Extract Microbial DNA from Different Matrices.Microorganisms · 2020Article
- Development of a DGGE method to exploreHeliyon · 2020Article
- Cell-free DNA in cancer: current insights.Cellular oncology (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2019Review
- Progress of analytical tools and techniques for human gut microbiome research.Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea) · 2018Review
- Genome Database of the Latvian Population (LGDB): Design, Goals, and Primary Results.Journal of epidemiology · 2018Article
- DNA Diagnostics for Schistosomiasis Control.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2018Review
- Development of a Membrane-Based Method for Isolation of Genomic DNA from Human Blood.Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT · 2018Article
- In vitro mesenchymal trilineage differentiation and extracellular matrix production by adipose and bone marrow derived adult equine multipotent stromal cells on a collagen scaffold.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2013Article
- DNA qualification workflow for next generation sequencing of histopathological samples.PloS one · 2013Article
- Assessment of the quality of dna extracted by two techniques from Mycobacterium tuberculosis for fast molecular identification and genotyping.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2011Article
- Molecular microbiological methods in the diagnosis of neonatal sepsis.Expert review of anti-infective therapy · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe extraction of nucleic acid is initially a limiting step for successful molecular-based diagnostic workup. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of three automated DNA extraction systems for clinical laboratory use. MATERIALS AND
methodsVenous blood samples from 22 healthy volunteers were analyzed using QIAamp Blood Mini Kit (Qiagen), MagNA Pure LC Nucleic Acid Isolation Kit I (Roche), and Magtration-Magnazorb DNA common kit-200N (PSS). The concentration of extracted DNAs was measured by NanoDrop ND-1000 (PeqLab). Also, extracted DNAs were confirmed by applying in direct agarose gel electrophoresis and were amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for human beta-globin gene.
resultsThe corrected concentrations of extracted DNAs were 25.42 +/- 8.82 ng/microL (13.49-52.85 ng/microL) by QIAamp Blood Mini Kit (Qiagen), and 22.65 +/- 14.49 ng/microL (19.18-93.39 ng/microL) by MagNA Pure LC Nucleic Acid Isolation Kit I, and 22.35 +/- 6.47 ng/microL (12.57-35.08 ng/microL) by Magtration-Magnazorb DNA common kit-200N (PSS). No statistically significant difference was noticed among the three commercial kits (p > 0.05). Only the mean value of DNA purity through PSS was slightly lower than others. All the extracted DNAs were successfully identified in direct agarose gel electrophoresis. And all the product of beta-globin gene PCR showed a reproducible pattern of bands.
conclusionThe effectiveness of the three automated extraction systems is of an equivalent level and good enough to produce reasonable results. Each laboratory could select the automated system according to its clinical and laboratory conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.