ArticleBMC infectious diseases2016
Enrichment of bacterial DNA for the diagnosis of blood stream infections.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid and modular workflows for same-day sequencing-based detection of bloodstream infections and antimicrobial resistance determinants using culture-enriched samples.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Duplex Recombinase Polymerase Amplification-Lateral Flow Assay for Rapid Visual Detection of Critical Antibiotic Resistance Genes in Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae From Positive Blood Cultures.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2026Article
- Optimization and clinical evaluation of a 5.8S rRNA quantitative PCR assay for the diagnosis of talaromycosis.Medical mycology · 2025Article
- Nanomechanical detection to empower robust monitoring of sepsis and microbial adaptive immune system-mediated proinflammatory disease.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Rapid nanopore sequencing and predictive susceptibility testing of positive blood cultures from intensive care patients with sepsis.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- From Shadows to Spotlight: Enhancing Bacterial DNA Detection in Blood Samples through Cutting-Edge Molecular Pre-Amplification.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Diagnosis of pathogens causing bacterial meningitis using Nanopore sequencing in a resource-limited setting.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2022Article
- Mechanisms of Ototoxicity and Otoprotection.Otolaryngologic clinics of North America · 2021Review
- Optimized DNA extraction and purification method for characterization of bacterial and fungal communities in lung tissue samples.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Aminoglycoside- and Cisplatin-Induced Ototoxicity: Mechanisms and Otoprotective Strategies.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2019Review
- PCR-based Sepsis@Quick test is superior in comparison with blood culture for identification of sepsis-causative pathogens.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Evaluation of the Magicplex™ Sepsis Real-Time Test for the Rapid Diagnosis of Bloodstream Infections in Adults.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2019Article
- Article
- DNA extraction from primary liquid blood cultures for bloodstream infection diagnosis using whole genome sequencing.Journal of medical microbiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBlood cultures are commonly employed to identify bacterial pathogens causing sepsis. PCR assays to diagnose septicemia require extraction of bacterial DNA from blood samples and thus, delay the initiation of appropriate antimicrobial treatment. The presence of abundant human DNA may hamper the sensitivity of PCR in the detection of bacteria.
methodsWe used serial dilutions of E. Coli spiked pseudo-blood-sepsis samples to develop a simple method that combines the use of a polar detergent solvent and adjustment of the basic pH to remove human DNA. A 16S rRNA gene-based screening algorithm was established to differentiate Gram-positive and Gram-negative groups of bacteria and the family of Enterobacteriaceae. A stringent validation with appropriate controls was implemented. The method of human DNA removal was then applied on 194 sepsis blood samples and 44 cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples by real-time PCR.
resultsThis uncomplicated and straightforward approach allows to remove up to 98 % of human DNA from peripheral blood of septic patients. The inhibitory effect of human DNA is efficiently prevented and the detection limit of real-time PCR is increased to 10 E. Coli CFUs/ml. This sensitivity is 10 times higher compared to conventional real-time PCR assays. The classical blood culture detected 58/194 (30 %) of sepsis and 9/44 (21 %) of CSF samples. Out of the 194 blood samples tested, the conventional real-time PCR targeting 13 common sepsis causing pathogens correctly detected the bacterial DNA in 16/194 (8 %) only and 14/44 (32 %) in cerebrospinal fluid samples. Our newly established approach was able to provide correct diagnoses in 78 (40 %) of the 194 blood samples and in 14 (32 %) of the CSF samples. The combination of both blood cultures and our technique raised the rate of sepsis diagnoses to 112/194 (58 %). Of the total group tested positive, 46 (24 %) cases showed overlap with the classical methodology.
conclusionWe report a simple optimized in-house protocol for removal of human DNA from blood sepsis samples as a pre-analytical tool to prepare DNA for subsequent PCR assays. With the detection increase of our in-house DNA removal approach, subsequent PCR assays can reach detection limits of 10 E. coli CFUs/ml and significantly improve the diagnostic rate in blood sepsis cases.
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.