Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28053646›Full record

ArticlePlant methods2017

Comparison of three genomic DNA extraction methods to obtain high DNA quality from maize.

Amani Abdel-Latif, Gamal Osman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant methods, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed
40.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

77 citing papers in PubMed, 337 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Application of ISSR Molecular Markers in Field Crops.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2027
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A Species-SpecificBiology · 2026
    Article
  7. The complete mitochondrial genome ofMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. The complete chloroplast genome and phylogenetic analysis ofMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Amani Abdel-LatifDepartment of Botany and Microbiology, Faculty of Science, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Gamal OsmanDepartment of Biology, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Umm Al-Qura University, PO Box 715, Makkah, 21955 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ; Agricultural Genetic Engineering Research Institute (AGERI), Giza, 12619 Egypt.
Alexandria University · EGUmm al-Qura University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe world's top three cereals, based on their monetary value, are rice, wheat, and corn. In cereal crops, DNA extraction is difficult owing to rigid non-cellulose components in the cell wall of leaves and high starch and protein content in grains. The advanced techniques in molecular biology require pure and quick extraction of DNA. The majority of existing DNA extraction methods rely on long incubation and multiple precipitations or commercially available kits to produce contaminant-free high molecular weight DNA.

resultsIn this study, we compared three different methods used for the isolation of high-quality genomic DNA from the grains of cereal crop,

conclusionThe modified Mericon extraction method was found to be the most efficient DNA extraction method, capable to provide high DNA yields with better quality, affordable cost and less time.

Indexed as

DNA extractionInternal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2)Internal transcribed spacer (ITS)

Identifiers

PMID28053646
PMCPMC5209869
OpenAlexW2561921279

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.