ArticleThe Journal of membrane biology2013
Comparison of alkaline lysis with electroextraction and optimization of electric pulses to extract plasmid DNA from Escherichia coli.
Article in The Journal of membrane biology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- A low-voltage alternant direct current electroporation chip for ultrafast releasing the genome DNA of Helicobacter pylori bacterium.Mikrochimica acta · 2024Article
- Separation Properties of Plasmid DNA Using a Two-Stage Particle Adsorption-Microfiltration Process.Membranes · 2023Article
- Identification of novel linear epitopes in P72 protein of African swine fever virus recognized by monoclonal antibodies.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Electrochemical cell lysis of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria: DNA extraction from environmental water samples.Electrochimica acta · 2020Article
- Gene transfer to plants by electroporation: methods and applications.Molecular biology reports · 2020Review
- Protein Extraction by Means of Electroporation from E. coli with Preserved Viability.The Journal of membrane biology · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of plasmid DNA (pDNA) as a pharmaceutical tool has increased since it represents a safer vector for gene transfer compared to viral vectors. Different pDNA extraction methods have been described; among them is alkaline lysis, currently the most commonly used. Although alkaline lysis represents an established method for isolation of pDNA, some drawbacks are recognized, such as entrapment of pDNA in cell debris, leading to lower pDNA recovery; the time-consuming process; and increase of the volume due to the buffers used, all leading to increased cost of production. We compared the concentration of extracted pDNA when two methods for extracting pDNA from Escherichia coli were used: alkaline lysis and a method based on membrane electroporation, electroextraction. At the same time, we also studied the effect of different pulse protocols on bacterial inactivation. The concentration of pDNA was assayed with anion exchange chromatography. When alkaline lysis was used, two incubations of lysis time (5 and 10 min) were compared in terms of the amount of isolated pDNA. We did not observe any difference in pDNA concentration regardless of incubation time used. In electroextraction, different pulse protocols were used in order to exceed the pDNA concentration obtained by alkaline lysis. We show that electroextraction gives a higher concentration of extracted pDNA than alkaline lysis, suggesting the use of electroporation as a potentially superior method for extracting pDNA from E. coli. In addition, electroextraction represents a quicker alternative to alkaline lysis for extracting pDNA.
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.