ArticleJournal of virological methods2011
Comparison of commercial systems for extraction of nucleic acids from DNA/RNA respiratory pathogens.
Article in Journal of virological methods, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 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
33 citing papers in PubMed, 73 citations in OpenAlex.
- Shaken, not stirred: magnetic bead DNA extraction as a rapid and effective method for the scaling up of bovine tuberculosis diagnosis.BMC veterinary research · 2024Article
- Epidemiological characteristics and meteorological factors of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) in hospitalized children in eastern Guangdong, China.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Review
- Intensity of sample processing methods impacts wastewater SARS-CoV-2 whole genome amplicon sequencing outcomes.The Science of the total environment · 2023Article
- Evaluation of DNA Extraction Methods for Reliable Quantification ofBiosensors · 2023Article
- 25 Years Responding to Respiratory and Other Viruses with Mass Spectrometry.Mass spectrometry (Tokyo, Japan) · 2023Review
- Comparison of in-house SARS-CoV-2 genome extraction procedures. A need for COVID-19 pandemic.Journal of virological methods · 2022Article
- Covid-19 deaths in Africa: prospective systematic postmortem surveillance study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Article
- Nucleic Acid-Based Sensing Techniques for Diagnostics and Surveillance of Influenza.Biosensors · 2021Review
- Comparison of Extraction Methods and Thermocyclers for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection Using Clinical Specimens.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2020Article
- Article
- A Host-Specific Blocking Primer Combined with Optimal DNA Extraction Improves the Detection Capability of a Metabarcoding Protocol for Canine Vector-Borne Bacteria.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Impact of nucleic acid extraction platforms on hepatitis virus genome detection.Journal of virological methods · 2019Article
- Comparison of the efficiency of different cell lysis methods and different commercial methods for RNA extraction from Candida albicans stored in RNAlater.BMC microbiology · 2019Article
- Article
- Does Size Matter? Comparison of Extraction Yields for Different-Sized DNA Fragments by Seven Different Routine and Four New Circulating Cell-Free Extraction Methods.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2018Article
- Comparison of eMAG™ versus NucliSENSJournal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2017Article
- Standardization of Nucleic Acid Tests for Clinical Measurements of Bacteria and Viruses.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2015Review
- Efficient, validated method for detection of mycobacterial growth in liquid culture media by use of bead beating, magnetic-particle-based nucleic acid isolation, and quantitative PCR.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2015Article
- Comparison of an automated nucleic acid extraction system with the column-based procedure.European journal of microbiology & immunology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared six automated nucleic acid extraction systems and one manual kit for their ability to recover nucleic acids from human nasal wash specimens spiked with five respiratory pathogens, representing Gram-positive bacteria (Streptococcus pyogenes), Gram-negative bacteria (Legionella pneumophila), DNA viruses (adenovirus), segmented RNA viruses (human influenza virus A), and non-segmented RNA viruses (respiratory syncytial virus). The robots and kit evaluated represent major commercially available methods that are capable of simultaneous extraction of DNA and RNA from respiratory specimens, and included platforms based on magnetic-bead technology (KingFisher mL, Biorobot EZ1, easyMAG, KingFisher Flex, and MagNA Pure Compact) or glass fiber filter technology (Biorobot MDX and the manual kit Allprep). All methods yielded extracts free of cross-contamination and RT-PCR inhibition. All automated systems recovered L. pneumophila and adenovirus DNA equivalently. However, the MagNA Pure protocol demonstrated more than 4-fold higher DNA recovery from the S. pyogenes than other methods. The KingFisher mL and easyMAG protocols provided 1- to 3-log wider linearity and extracted 3- to 4-fold more RNA from the human influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus. These findings suggest that systems differed in nucleic acid recovery, reproducibility, and linearity in a pathogen specific manner.
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.