ArticleJournal of biomolecular techniques : JBT2014
Comparative study of seven commercial kits for human DNA extraction from urine samples suitable for DNA biomarker-based public health studies.
Article in Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 75 citations in OpenAlex.
- Urinary DNA Extraction in Uro-Oncology and Selected Non-Urological Malignancies: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Comparative Study of Moringa oleifera and Sclerocarya birrea Extracts in Forensic Urine Analysis.ChemistryOpen · 2026Article
- Analytical validation of a metagenomic next-generation diagnostic platform for urinary tract infection in a Thai tertiary hospital setting: a BI-Biotia UTI cohort study.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- A United States study of self-collected urine vs clinician-collected cervical sample for HPV and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade two or worse detection: Cross-sectional agreement and diagnostic accuracy study.Preventive medicine reports · 2025Article
- A bibliometric analysis of nucleic acid probe and its applications in oncology: towards more precise molecular medicine.Discover oncology · 2025Review
- Genomic DNA Extraction from Different Human Tissue Sample: Urine, Oral Gargle, Blood, and Cervical for Real Time Amplification by qPCR.Indian journal of clinical biochemistry : IJCB · 2025Article
- A rapid purification method for trace amounts of cell-free DNA in urine.Analytical sciences : the international journal of the Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry · 2025Article
- Cell-free nucleic acid fragmentomics: A non-invasive window into cellular epigenomes.Translational oncology · 2024Review
- Point-of-care isothermal nucleic acid amplification tests: progress and bottlenecks for extraction-free sample collection and preparation.Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2024Review
- Genomic architecture of resistance to latania scale (H. lataniae) in kiwifruit (A. chinensis var. chinensis).BMC plant biology · 2023Article
- Article
- Dynamics of methylated cell-free DNA in the urine of non-small cell lung cancer patients.Epigenetics · 2022Article
- Automated DNA, RNA, and Protein Extraction from Urine for Biobanking.Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT · 2022Article
- Article
- Measurement Biases Distort Cell-Free DNA Fragmentation Profiles and Define the Sensitivity of Metagenomic Cell-Free DNA Sequencing Assays.Clinical chemistry · 2021Article
- Leptospirosis infections among hospital patients, Sarawak, Malaysia.Tropical diseases, travel medicine and vaccines · 2021Article
- Genotyping of the Major SARS-CoV-2 Clade by Short-Amplicon High-Resolution Melting (SA-HRM) Analysis.Genes · 2021Article
- Application of a Genus-Specific LAMP Assay for Schistosome Species to DetectJournal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Extraction of urinary cell-free DNA by using triamine-modified silica particles for liquid biopsy.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human genomic DNA extracted from urine could be an interesting tool for large-scale public health studies involving characterization of genetic variations or DNA biomarkers as a result of the simple and noninvasive collection method. These studies, involving many samples, require a rapid, easy, and standardized extraction protocol. Moreover, for practicability, there is a necessity to collect urine at a moment different from the first void and to store it appropriately until analysis. The present study compared seven commercial kits to select the most appropriate urinary human DNA extraction procedure for epidemiological studies. DNA yield has been determined using different quantification methods: two classical, i.e., NanoDrop and PicoGreen, and two species-specific real-time quantitative (q)PCR assays, as DNA extracted from urine contains, besides human, microbial DNA also, which largely contributes to the total DNA yield. In addition, the kits giving a good yield were also tested for the presence of PCR inhibitors. Further comparisons were performed regarding the sampling time and the storage conditions. Finally, as a proof-of-concept, an important gene related to smoking has been genotyped using the developed tools. We could select one well-performing kit for the human DNA extraction from urine suitable for molecular diagnostic real-time qPCR-based assays targeting genetic variations, applicable to large-scale studies. In addition, successful genotyping was possible using DNA extracted from urine stored at -20°C for several months, and an acceptable yield could also be obtained from urine collected at different moments during the day, which is particularly important for public health studies.
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.