Article3 Biotech2017
A quick and effective in-house method of DNA purification from agarose gel, suitable for sequencing.
Article in 3 Biotech, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mycorrhizal specialization for Tulasnellaceae fungi in Taeniophyllum marianense, a leafless epiphytic orchid native to Guam.Journal of plant research · 2026Article
- Description of the novel variant c.784delG;p. (Ala262Profs*68) atBiomedical reports · 2026Article
- Protocol for detecting interactions between intrinsically disordered proteins and long DNA substrates by electrophoretic mobility shift assay.STAR protocols · 2025Article
- Synergistic effects ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Morphological, biological, and genomic characterization of Klebsiella pneumoniae phage vB_Kpn_ZC2.Virology journal · 2023Article
- Article
- Topically Applied Bacteriophage to Control Multi-Drug ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sequencing of DNA fragments (e.g., ITS, 16S, 18S, particular genes, and molecular markers) is increasingly required in studies on microbial diversity, microbial genetic population and phylogeny, sequencing of alleles, and searching for SNPs, among others. The cost of obtaining these DNAs, in quantity and quality for sequencing, is high as it involves special kits to recover DNA from gel after PCR, or the cloning and purification of plasmids with commercial kits. Genetic population and other studies require the analyses of many samples, and therefore, the high cost represents an obstacle for carrying out such projects in countries where there is great biodiversity, such as the tropical and subtropical developing countries, where funds are limited. Modifying an already known method for DNA recovery from gel, the first in-house protocol of DNA recovery suitable for direct use in sequencing is presented herein. This protocol is broadly applicable on DNAs from all different living beings, e.g., bacteria, fungi, and plants. Its simplicity, speed, and low cost make this procedure amenable for high-throughput DNA sequencings as required in microbial population studies, development of molecular markers, molecular identification of strains in microbial collections, and others. Recovery of DNA fragments from agarose gel is one of the most common tasks in molecular biology laboratories. Therefore, its potential of applicability of the protocol presented here is enormous.
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.