Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24936792›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Enzymatic treatment of specimens before DNA extraction directly influences molecular detection of infectious agents.

Pablo Goldschmidt, Sandrine Degorge, Lilia Merabet, Christine Chaumeil

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Molecular Diagnosis of Yeast Infections.Current fungal infection reports · 2021
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Critical Issues in Mycobiota Analysis.Frontiers in microbiology · 2017
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Pablo GoldschmidtLaboratoire du Centre Hospitalier National d'Ophtalmologie des Quinze-Vingts, Paris, France.
Sandrine DegorgeLaboratoire du Centre Hospitalier National d'Ophtalmologie des Quinze-Vingts, Paris, France.
Lilia MerabetLaboratoire du Centre Hospitalier National d'Ophtalmologie des Quinze-Vingts, Paris, France.
Christine ChaumeilLaboratoire du Centre Hospitalier National d'Ophtalmologie des Quinze-Vingts, Paris, France.
Centre hospitalier national d'ophtalmologie des Quinze-Vingts · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionBiological samples, pharmaceuticals or food contain proteins, lipids, polymers, ammoniums and macromolecules that alter the detection of infectious agents by DNA amplification techniques (PCR). Moreover the targeted DNA has to be released from the complex cell walls and the compact nucleoprotein matrixes and cleared from potential inhibitors. The goal of the present work was to assess the efficiency of enzymatic pretreatments on infectious agents to make DNA available for further extraction and amplification.

methodsStaphylococcus epidermidis, Streptococcus mitis, Propionibacterium acnes, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Candida albicans, Aspergillus niger and Fusarium solani were mixed with an internal control virus and treated with: 1) proteinase K; 2) lyticase and 3) lyticase followed by proteinase K. DNAs was manually extracted using the QIAmp DNA Mini kit or the MagNA Pure Compact automate. DNA extraction yields and the inhibitors were assessed with a phocid Herpesvirus. Bacterial detection was performed using TaqMan real-time PCR and yeasts and filamentous Fungi with HRM (real-time PCR followed by high-resolution melting analysis).

resultsViral DNA was released, extracted and detected using manual and automatic methods without pre enzymatic treatments. Either the manual or the automatic DNA extraction systems did not meet the sensitivity expectations if enzymatic treatments were not performed before: lyticase for Fungi and Proteinase K for Bacteria. The addition of lyticase and proteinase K did not improve results. For Fungi the detection after lyticase was higher than for Proteinase K, for which melting analysis did not allow fungal specification. DISCUSSION: Columns and magnetic beads allowed collecting DNA and separate PCR inhibitors. Detection rates cannot be related to DNA-avidity of beads or to elution but to the lack of proteolysis.

Indexed as

Endopeptidase KGlucan Endo-1,3-beta-D-GlucosidaseMultienzyme ComplexesPeptide HydrolasesReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionAscomycotaBacteriaDNA, BacterialDNA, FungalHumansSensitivity and SpecificityDNA, BacterialDNA, FungalEndopeptidase KGlucan Endo-1,3-beta-D-GlucosidaselyticaseMultienzyme ComplexesPeptide Hydrolases

Identifiers

PMID24936792
PMCPMC4061000
OpenAlexW2023472994

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.