ArticleMolecular biology reports2012
Comparison of genomic DNA extraction techniques from whole blood samples: a time, cost and quality evaluation study.
Article in Molecular biology reports, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 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
46 citing papers in PubMed, 95 citations in OpenAlex.
- The TyG Index, Dietary Vitamin E Intake, and LRP5 rs4988321 in Adults with MASLD: A Case-Control Study.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Article
- Performance of the automated DNA extraction with MagNA Pure 24 for further genetic testing for hemoglobinopathies with Globin StripAssays.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Article
- A Green and Practical Magnetic Ionic Liquid-Based Microextraction of DNA Using a Low-Cost 3D-Printed Open-Source Apparatus.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Robust, Open-Source and Automation-Friendly DNA Extraction Protocol for Hologenomic Research.Molecular ecology resources · 2025Article
- A novel and simple workflow for investigating Mycoplasma spp. contamination in cell cultures.Folia microbiologica · 2025Article
- Brain-derived Neurotrophic Factor Level and Gene Polymorphism as Risk Factors for Depression in Patients with type 2 Diabetes Mellitus- A Case-Controlled Study.Current diabetes reviews · 2025Article
- Chemical contamination in the extracted DNA affects the results of HLA typing by the PCR-SSOP method.Molecular biology reports · 2024Article
- The effects of OPRM1 118A>G on methadone response in pain management in advanced cancer at end of life.Scientific reports · 2024Review
- A rapid and inexpensive 96-well DNA-extraction method from blood using silicon dioxide powder (Glassmilk).Biology methods & protocols · 2024Article
- Genetic variants in the TAC1 transcriptional regulatory region affect on trainability and excitability levels in Belgian Malinois dogs.Veterinary medicine and science · 2024Article
- Comparing RNA extraction methods to face the variations in RNA quality using two human biological matrices.Molecular biology reports · 2023Article
- Oral Lactobacillus species and their probiotic capabilities in patients with periodontitis and periodontally healthy individuals.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2023Article
- SDC4-rs1981429 and ATM-rs228590 may provide early biomarkers of breast cancer risk.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- A Review of Detection Methods for Vancomycin-ResistantBiosensors · 2023Review
- Article
- Quality analysis of genomic DNA and authentication of fisheries products based on distinct methods of DNA extraction.PloS one · 2023Article
- Association of KCNJ6 rs2070995 and methadone response for pain management in advanced cancer at end-of-life.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- DNA testing for sickle cell anemia in Africa: Implementation choices for the Democratic Republic of Congo.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Article
- Slaughterhouse and poultry wastes: management practices, feedstocks for renewable energy production, and recovery of value added products.Biomass conversion and biorefinery · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genomic DNA obtained from patient whole blood samples is a key element for genomic research. Advantages and disadvantages, in terms of time-efficiency, cost-effectiveness and laboratory requirements, of procedures available to isolate nucleic acids need to be considered before choosing any particular method. These characteristics have not been fully evaluated for some laboratory techniques, such as the salting out method for DNA extraction, which has been excluded from comparison in different studies published to date. We compared three different protocols (a traditional salting out method, a modified salting out method and a commercially available kit method) to determine the most cost-effective and time-efficient method to extract DNA. We extracted genomic DNA from whole blood samples obtained from breast cancer patient volunteers and compared the results of the product obtained in terms of quantity (concentration of DNA extracted and DNA obtained per ml of blood used) and quality (260/280 ratio and polymerase chain reaction product amplification) of the obtained yield. On average, all three methods showed no statistically significant differences between the final result, but when we accounted for time and cost derived for each method, they showed very significant differences. The modified salting out method resulted in a seven- and twofold reduction in cost compared to the commercial kit and traditional salting out method, respectively and reduced time from 3 days to 1 hour compared to the traditional salting out method. This highlights a modified salting out method as a suitable choice to be used in laboratories and research centres, particularly when dealing with a large number of samples.
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.