Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30894946›Full record

ArticleJournal of dental sciences2016

The impact of different DNA extraction methods on the analysis of microbial diversity of oral saliva from healthy youths by polymerase chain reaction-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis.

Ming Chen, Bu-Ling Wu, Ting Chen, Zhao Liu, Zi-Long Deng, Ling Peng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

6 authors.

Ming ChenDepartment of Stomatology, Nanfang Hospital, College of Stomatology, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Bu-Ling WuDepartment of Stomatology, Nanfang Hospital, College of Stomatology, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Ting ChenDepartment of Stomatology, Nanfang Hospital, College of Stomatology, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Zhao LiuDepartment of Stomatology, Nanfang Hospital, College of Stomatology, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Zi-Long DengDepartment of Stomatology, Nanfang Hospital, College of Stomatology, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Ling PengDepartment of Stomatology, Nanfang Hospital, College of Stomatology, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background/purposePolymerase chain reaction-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (PCR-DGGE), as a conventional molecular technique, was utilized to analyze the diversity of oral microbiota. However, studies found that the results of PCR-DGGE were affected by the DNA isolation method. This study compared QIAamp DNA Micro Kit extraction method with the phenol and chloroform extraction method for DNA isolation of saliva of healthy youths and analyzed PCR-DGGE fingerprints. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn the first stage, samples were divided into two after collection from eight health youths. Two methods were used to isolate the DNA for PCR-DGGE analysis. In the second stage, another 16 samples were collected from 14 youths. The better method, QIAamp DNA Micro Kit, was used to isolate the DNA for PCR-DGGE analysis. The cluster analysis was performed with unweighted pair-group method with arithmetic means.

resultsThe results in the first stage showed that the QIAamp DNA Micro Kit extraction method was more suitable for DNA extraction of saliva than the phenol-chloroform extraction method. In the second stage, the bands were changed into numbers "0", "1", and "2" to analyze the similarity of samples according to the bands' lightness. The similarity indices of different periods from the same individual showed that the microbiological composition was very similar (>0.95), while those from different individuals varied greatly (<0.90).

conclusionPCR-DGGE was more accurate in assessing oral microbial diversity by QIAamp DNA Micro Kit. Different individuals had large differences in oral microbial diversity but also had some common microbial dominant communities.

Indexed as

diversitymicroorganismsPCR-DGGEsaliva

Identifiers

PMID30894946
PMCPMC6395153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.