ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2013
Maximizing DNA yield for epidemiologic studies: no more buffy coats?
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimization and comparison of genomic DNA extraction from whole blood collected in PAXgene blood RNA tube using automated platforms.Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine · 2026Article
- DNA extraction from clotted blood in genotyping quality.BioTechniques · 2023Article
- Preanalytical DNA assessment for downstream applications: How to optimize the management of human biospecimens to support molecular diagnosis-An experimental study.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Article
- Targeted genome sequencing data of young women breast cancer patients in Cipto Mangunkusumo national hospital, Jakarta.Data in brief · 2020Article
- Evaluating minimally invasive sample collection methods for telomere length measurement.American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council · 2018Article
- Superparamagnetic-bead Based Method: An Effective DNA Extraction from Dried Blood Spots (DBS) for Diagnostic PCR.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2014Article
- Loop-mediated isothermal amplification for Rickettsia typhi (the causal agent of murine typhus): problems with diagnosis at the limit of detection.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Some molecular analyses require microgram quantities of DNA, yet many epidemiologic studies preserve only the buffy coat. In Frederick, Maryland, in 2010, we estimated DNA yields from 5 mL of whole blood and from equivalent amounts of all-cell-pellet (ACP) fraction, buffy coat, and residual blood cells from fresh blood (n = 10 volunteers) and from both fresh and frozen blood (n = 10). We extracted DNA with the QIAamp DNA Blood Midi Kit (Qiagen Sciences, Germantown, Maryland) for silica spin column capture and measured double-stranded DNA. Yields from frozen blood fractions were not statistically significantly different from those obtained from fresh fractions. ACP fractions yielded 80.6% (95% confidence interval: 66, 97) of the yield of frozen whole blood and 99.3% (95% confidence interval: 86, 100) of the yield of fresh blood. Frozen buffy coat and residual blood cells each yielded only half as much DNA as frozen ACP, and the yields were more variable. Assuming that DNA yield and quality from frozen ACP are stable, we recommend freezing plasma and ACP. Not only does ACP yield twice as much DNA as buffy coat but it is easier to process, and its yield is less variable from person to person. Long-term stability studies are needed. If one wishes to separate buffy coat before freezing, one should also save the residual blood cell fraction, which contains just as much DNA.
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.