ArticleFolia microbiologica2015
Assessment of methods to recover DNA from bacteria, fungi and archaea in complex environmental samples.
Article in Folia microbiologica, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
DNA extraction from environmental samples is a critical step for metagenomic analysis to study microbial communities, including those considered uncultivable. Nevertheless, obtaining good quality DNA in sufficient quantities for downstream methodologies is not always possible, and it depends on the complexity and stability of each ecosystem, which could be more problematic for samples from tropical regions because those ecosystems are less stable and more complex. Three laboratory methods for the extraction of nucleic acids from samples representing unstable (decaying coffee pulp and mangrove sediments) and relatively stable (compost and soil) environments were tested. The results were compared with those obtained using two commercial DNA extraction kits. The quality of the extracted DNA was evaluated by PCR amplification to verify the recovery of bacterial, archaeal, and fungal genetic material. The laboratory method that gave the best results used a lysis procedure combining physical, chemical, and enzymatic steps.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26014885What 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.