ArticleParasitology research2016
Is "dried stool spots on filter paper method (DSSFP)" more sensitive and effective for detecting Blastocystis spp. and their subtypes by PCR and sequencing?
Article in Parasitology research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utility of a Fluid Library with Samples of Humans, Reservoirs and Vectors Collected in Filter Paper, for Retrospective Diagnosis of American Trypanosomiasis in Endemic Areas of Venezuela.Acta parasitologica · 2021Article
- Determination of subtypes ofParasite epidemiology and control · 2020Article
- Diagnosis of amphimeriasis by LAMPhimerus assay in human stool samples long-term storage onto filter paper.PloS one · 2018Article
- Epidemiology and Prevalence ofThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2017Article
- Detection ofIranian journal of parasitologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PCR and DNA sequencing are currently the diagnostic methods of choice for detection of Blastocystis spp. and their suptypes. Fresh or frozen stool samples have disadvantages in terms of several aspects such as transportation, storage, and existence of PCR inhibitors. Filter paper technology may provide a solution to these issues. The aim of the present study was to detect Blastocystis spp. and their subtypes by employing two different preservation methods: conventional frozen stool (FS) and dried stool spots on filter paper (DSSFP). Concentration and purity of DNA, sensitivity of PCR, and DNA sequencing results obtained from the two methods were also compared. A total of 230 fecal samples were included and separated into two parts: one part of the fecal samples were directly frozen and stored at -20 °C. The remaining portion of the specimens were homogenized with saline and spread onto the filter papers as thin layer with a diameter of approximately 3 cm. After air-dried, the filter papers were stored at room temperature. DSSFP samples were collected by scraping from the filter papers. DNA were extracted by EURx Stool DNA Extraction Kit from both samples. Concentration and purity were measured with Nano-Drop, then PCR and sequencing were conducted for detection of Blastocystis spp. and its genotypes. Pure DNA was obtained with a A260/A280 ratio of 1.7-2.2 in both methods. DNA yield from FS was 25-405 ng/μl and average DNA concentration was 151 ng/μl, while these were 7-339 and 122 ng/μl for DSSFP, respectively. No PCR inhibition was observed in two methods. DNA from DSSFP were found to be stable and PCR were reproducible for at least 1 year. FS-PCR- and DSSFP-PCR-positive samples were 49 (21.3 %) and 58 (25.3 %), respectively (p = 0.078). The 43 specimens were concordantly positive by both FS-PCR and DSSFP-PCR. When the microscopy was taken as the gold standard, sensitivity of DSSFP-PCR and FS-PCR was 95.5 and 86.4 %, while specificity of both tests was 99.4 and 98.3 %, respectively. DNA sequencing results of 19 microscopically confirmed cases were strictly identical (concordance 100 %) in both methods, and ST2:6, ST3:8, ST4:3, and ST6:2 were the detected subtypes. Among the 230 fecal samples, the most predominant subtypes were ST3, ST2, ST4, and ST1 by both FS and DSSFP methods. Concordance of DNA sequencing results obtained from the two methods was noted to be 90.7 %. To our knowledge, this is the first study that demonstrates DNA extraction from DSSFP is more sensitive and effective than the FS method for diagnosis of Blastocystis spp. and their subtypes by PCR and DNA sequencing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27530517What 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.