ArticleMedical journal, Armed Forces India2018
Evaluation of three DNA extraction methods from fungal cultures.
Article in Medical journal, Armed Forces India, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic performance and antibiotic impact of droplet digital PCR in suspected sepsis: the PROGRESS trial.Nature communications · 2026Trial
- Rapid detection of cultivated truffle fungi (Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026Article
- Molecular Epidemiology and Antifungal Susceptibility ofInfection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of 1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine biodegradation by Penicillium hetheringtonii and Fusarium sp.Archives of microbiology · 2025Article
- Lung microbiome dynamics in health and lung cancer.Microbial genomics · 2025Review
- Optimization and clinical evaluation of a 5.8S rRNA quantitative PCR assay for the diagnosis of talaromycosis.Medical mycology · 2025Article
- Improved Extraction Methods to Isolate High Molecular Weight DNA From Magnaporthaceae and Other Grass Root Fungi for Long-Read Whole Genome Sequencing.Bio-protocol · 2025Article
- Bioremediation Potential of Indigenous Bacterial Isolates for Treating Petroleum Hydrocarbons-Induced Environmental Pollution.ACS omega · 2025Article
- An innovative high-throughput genome releaser for rapid and efficient PCR screening.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Molecular Characterization of Dermatophytes Isolated in a Tertiary Care Hospital in the North Eastern Part of India.Cureus · 2024Article
- Clinical evaluation of droplet digital pcr for suspected ascites infection in patients with liver cirrhosis.Hepatology international · 2024Article
- Biodegradation of Naphthalene Using Biosurfactant Producing Fusarium proliferatum WC416 Isolated from Refinery Effluent.Applied biochemistry and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Molecular Epidemiology and Antifungal Susceptibility Profile in Nakaseomyces glabrata Species Complex: A 5-Year Countrywide Study.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2024Article
- Assessing recovery rates of distinct exogenous controls for gDNA extraction efficiency using phenol-chloroform or silica-column based extractions.Journal of microbiological methods · 2022Article
- Clinical validation of a multiplex droplet digital PCR for diagnosing suspected bloodstream infections in ICU practice: a promising diagnostic tool.Critical care (London, England) · 2022Article
- Fungi Occurrence in Ready-to-Eat Hazelnuts (Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Genome Mining and Molecular Networking-Based Metabolomics of the Marine FacultativeMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Comparison of methods for isolating fungal DNA.Practical laboratory medicine · 2021Article
- The complete mitochondrial genome of the mudskipper,Mitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based assays have been developed to amplify DNA of fungal pathogens as culture-based detection methods show low sensitivity. In order to perform a sensitive, specific, and reliable PCR based assay, the availability of pure DNA as well as an easy-to-perform DNA extraction protocol is essential. The existing protocols for DNA extraction used for bacteria or viruses show poor release of fungal DNA. In this study, we evaluated three different methods of DNA extraction and compared their efficacy in the extraction of DNA from filamentous fungi, yeasts, and dermatophytes commonly isolated in our laboratory. It was found that the Fungi/Yeast Genomic DNA Isolation Kit (Norgen Biotek Corp, Ontario, Canada) demonstrated satisfactory extraction of DNA from all the fungi analyzed as compared to that of the Qiamp DNA extraction kit (Qiagen GmbH, Dusseldorf, Germany) or the Phenol Chloroform Isoamyl alcohol extraction method which failed to extract amplifiable DNA from many of the fungal species. Thus, we recommend the use of Fungi/Yeast Genomic DNA Isolation Kit (Norgen) with modifications for the extraction of DNA from fungal cultures.
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.