ArticlePloS one2019
An efficient and cost-effective method for purification of small sized DNAs and RNAs from human urine.
Article in PloS one, 2019. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- inDrops-2: a flexible, versatile and cost-efficient droplet microfluidic approach for high-throughput scRNA-seq of fresh and preserved clinical samples.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- In-depth metataxonomic investigation reveals low richness, high intervariability, and diverse phylotype candidates of archaea in the human urogenital tract.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- A Comprehensive Comparison of Rapid RNA Extraction Methods for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 as the Infectious Agent of the Upper Respiratory Tract using Direct RT-LAMP Assay.Advanced biomedical research · 2023Article
- Article
- An optimized method for purifying, detecting and quantifying Mycobacterium tuberculosis RNA from sputum for monitoring treatment response in TB patients.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Trans-Renal Cell-Free Tumor DNA for Urine-Based Liquid Biopsy of Cancer.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Review
- Framework for a Community Health Observing System for the Gulf of Mexico Region: Preparing for Future Disasters.Frontiers in public health · 2020Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Urine holds great promise as a non-invasive sampling method for molecular diagnostics. The cell-free nucleic acids of urine however are small, labile, and difficult to purify. Here an efficient method for the purification of these nucleic acids is presented. An empirically derived protocol was devised by first identifying conditions that allowed recovery of a 100 base pair (bp) DNA, followed by optimization using a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assay. The resulting method efficiently purifies both small sized DNAs and RNAs from urine, which when combined with quantitative reverse transcription PCR (qRTPCR), demonstrably improves detection sensitivity. Fractionation experiments reveal that nucleic acids in urine exist both in the cell-free and cellular fraction, roughly in equal proportion. Consistent with previous studies, amplicons > 180bp show a marked loss in PCR sensitivity for cell-free nucleic acids. Finally, the lysis buffer developed here also doubles as an effective preservative, protecting against nucleic acid degradation for at least two weeks under simulated field conditions. With this method, volumes of up to 25ml of whole urine can be purified in a high-throughput and cost-effective manner. Coupled with its ability to purify both DNA and RNA, the described method may have broad applicability for improving the diagnostic utility of urine, particularly for the detection of low abundant targets.
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.