ArticlePloS one2019
Elimination of bacterial DNA during RNA isolation from sputum: Bashing bead vortexing is preferable over prolonged DNase treatment.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Residual eDNA in eRNA Extracts Skews eRNA-Based Biodiversity Assessment: Call for Optimised DNase Treatment.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- Non-Coding RNAs in Pulmonary Diseases: Comparison of Different Airway-Derived Biosamples.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Sputum Cytokine Profiling in COPD: Comparison Between Stable Disease and Exacerbation.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2022Article
- A Novel Processing-Free Method for RNAseq Analysis of Spontaneous Sputum in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- The pseudogene problem and RT-qPCR data normalization; SYMPK: a suitable reference gene for papillary thyroid carcinoma.Scientific reports · 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
Sputum often contains large amounts of contaminating bacterial DNA that, if not eliminated during RNA isolation, may interfere with gene expression studies. During RNA isolation only repeated DNase treatment can effectively remove contaminating bacterial DNA from samples, but this compromises RNA quality. In this study we tested alternative methods to facilitate the removal of DNA and improve the quality of RNA obtained. Sputum samples obtained from patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were processed with dithiothreitol and subjected to various RNA isolation methods, yet with modified protocols. Modifications included prolonged DNase treatment or vortexing of sputum cells in the presence of beads prior to RNA isolation. Bacterial DNA contamination was tested by PCR using universal bacterial primers, while RNA quality was assessed by real-time PCR using GAPDH primers for amplicons of different length. We found that the RNeasy Plus Mini kit equipped with the gDNA eliminator spin column was able to completely eliminate bacterial DNA, if sputum cells were lysed in the presence of bashing beads. Notably, compared with the standard protocol, the modified procedure yielded better quality RNA as well, as indicated by improved threshold profiles of qPCR. Bead vortexing of cells was less effective when combined with other RNA isolation methods, and the repeated DNase treatment needed to completely remove contaminating DNA from the samples reduced the quality of RNA markedly. Bead vortexing in combination with certain RNA extraction methods greatly facilitates the isolation of sputum RNA that is free of contaminating bacterial DNA, and is suitable for downstream applications.
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.