Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21448453›Full record

ArticlePloS one2011

Pathogen quantitation in complex matrices: a multi-operator comparison of DNA extraction methods with a novel assessment of PCR inhibition.

Alessandra Pontiroli, Emma Rachel Travis, Francis Patrick Sweeney, David Porter, William Hugo Gaze, Sam Mason, Victoria Hibberd, Jennifer Holden, Orin Courtenay, Elizabeth Margaret Helen Wellington

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Microorganisms · 2021
    Article
  3. DoesVeterinary medicine international · 2021
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Performance of a commercial assay for detecting and quantifying HEV RNA in faeces.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2018
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alessandra PontiroliUniversity of Warwick, School of Life Sciences, Coventry, United Kingdom. A.Pontiroli@warwick.ac.uk
Emma Rachel Travis
Francis Patrick Sweeney
David Porter
William Hugo Gaze
Sam Mason
Victoria Hibberd
Jennifer Holden
Orin Courtenay
Elizabeth Margaret Helen Wellington
University of Warwick · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/E020925/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMycobacterium bovis is the aetiological agent of bovine tuberculosis (bTB), an important recrudescent zoonosis, significantly increasing in British herds in recent years. Wildlife reservoirs have been identified for this disease but the mode of transmission to cattle remains unclear. There is evidence that viable M. bovis cells can survive in soil and faeces for over a year. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsWe report a multi-operator blinded trial for a rigorous comparison of five DNA extraction methods from a variety of soil and faecal samples to assess recovery of M. bovis via real-time PCR detection. The methods included four commercial kits: the QIAamp Stool Mini kit with a pre-treatment step, the FastDNA® Spin kit, the UltraClean™ and PowerSoil™ soil kits and a published manual method based on phenol:chloroform purification, termed Griffiths. M. bovis BCG Pasteur spiked samples were extracted by four operators and evaluated using a specific real-time PCR assay. A novel inhibition control assay was used alongside spectrophotometric ratios to monitor the level of inhibitory compounds affecting PCR, DNA yield, and purity. There were statistically significant differences in M. bovis detection between methods of extraction and types of environmental samples; no significant differences were observed between operators. Processing times and costs were also evaluated. To improve M. bovis detection further, the two best performing methods, FastDNA® Spin kit and Griffiths, were optimised and the ABI TaqMan environmental PCR Master mix was adopted, leading to improved sensitivities.

conclusionsM. bovis was successfully detected in all environmental samples; DNA extraction using FastDNA® Spin kit was the most sensitive method with highest recoveries from all soil types tested. For troublesome faecal samples, we have used and recommend an improved assay based on a reduced volume, resulting in detection limits of 4.25×10(5) cells g(-1) using Griffiths and 4.25×10(6) cells g(-1) using FastDNA® Spin kit.

Indexed as

ArtifactsAnimalsCattleCost-Benefit AnalysisDNA, BacterialMycobacterium bovisPolymerase Chain ReactionReagent Kits, DiagnosticSensitivity and SpecificityDNA, BacterialReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID21448453
PMCPMC3063169
OpenAlexW2013318782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.