ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2019
DNA Adsorption Studies of Poly(4,4'-Cychlohexylidene Bisphenol Oxalate)/Silica Nanocomposites.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study deals with the synthesis, characterization, and DNA extraction of poly(4,4'-cyclohexylidene bisphenol oxalate)/silica (Si) nanocomposites (NCs). The effects of varying the monomer/Si (3.7%, 7%, and 13%) ratio towards the size and morphology of the resulting NC and its DNA extraction capabilities have also been studied. For the NC synthesis, two different methods were followed, including the direct mixing of poly(4,4'-cyclohexylidene bisphenol oxalate) with fumed Si, and in situ polymerization of the 4,4'-cyclohexylidene bisphenol monomer in the presence of fumed silica (11 nm). The formed NCs were thoroughly investigated by using different techniques such as scanning electron microscopy (SEM), fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), powdered X-ray diffraction (XRD), and Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) analysis where the results supported that there was the successful formation of poly(4,4'-cyclohexylidene bisphenol oxalate)/Si NC. Within the three different NC samples, the one with 13% Si was found to maintain a very high surface area of 12.237 m²/g, as compared to the other two samples consisting of 7% Si (3.362 m²/g) and 3.7% Si (1.788 m²/g). Further, the solid phase DNA extraction studies indicated that the efficiency is strongly influenced by the amount of polymer (0.2 g > 0.1 g > 0.02 g) and the type of binding buffer. Among the three binding buffers tested, the guanidine hydrochloride/EtOH buffer produced the most satisfactory results in terms of yield (1,348,000 ng) and extraction efficiency (3370 ng/mL) as compared to the other two buffers of NaCl (2 M) and phosphate buffered silane. Based on our results, it can be indicated that the developed poly(4,4'-cyclohexylidene bisphenol oxalate)/Si NC can serve as one of the suitable candidates for the extraction of DNA in high amounts as compared to other traditional solid phase approaches.
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.