ArticlePloS one2012
Performance evaluation of the Maxwell 16 System for extraction of influenza virus RNA from diverse samples.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Viral RNA Extraction Protocols for Senecavirus A and Classical Swine Fever Virus.Folia microbiologica · 2025Article
- Use of FTA card for the detection of two RNA (CSFV and SV-A) and two DNA viruses (ASFVand SuHV-1) of importance in veterinary medicine.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2024Article
- Article
- Evaluation of different diagnostic methods for the detection of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis in boot swabs and liquid manure samples.BMC veterinary research · 2017Article
- West Nile Virus Circulation in Mosquitoes in Greece (2010-2013).BioMed research international · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the performance of the Maxwell 16 System (Promega) for extraction of influenza virus (flu-v) RNA from diverse samples compared to a classical manual method (QIAamp Kit, QIAGEN). Following extraction by the two methods, all samples were analyzed by Real-time RT-PCR. Results revealed that the use of the standard Maxwell 16 protocol (Maxwell 16-S) resulted in good linearity and precision across a wide concentration range and higher sensitivity of detection from flu-v stock suspensions than the manual method. Compared with the latter method, Maxwell 16-S extracted RNA more efficiently (higher RNA yield and/or fewer PCR inhibitors) from throat swabs and bronchoalveolar lavage fluids, while both methods performed comparably on fecal samples from human and poultry in terms of overall threshold cycle values and detection rates although the Maxwell 16-S co-purified more inhibitors from fecal samples. The capacity of this system to remove inhibitors from fecal matrix was improved by using a modified Maxwell 16 protocol with a reduced sample input, which eliminated all false-negatives produced by the Maxwell 16-S. These findings suggest that the Maxwell 16 System is suitable for RNA extraction from multiple-source samples for diagnosis of influenza and viral load determination and that a proper reduction in starting sample volume may improve the detection of flu-v from complex matrices such as feces. Additionally, this system allows flexible sample throughput and labor-saving sample processing with little or no risk of cross-contamination.
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.