ArticlePloS one2019
A comparison of Lyse-It to other cellular sample preparation, bacterial lysing, and DNA fragmentation technologies.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sample Preparation and Diagnostic Methods for a Variety of Settings: A Comprehensive Review.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Development of a Microplate Platform for High-Throughput Sample Preparation Based on Microwave Metasurfaces.IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The ability for safe and rapid pathogenic sample transportation and subsequent detection is an increasing challenge throughout the world. Herein, we describe and use bead-beating, vortex, sonication, 903 protein saver cards, and Lyse-It methods, aiming to inactivate Gram-positive and -negative bacteria with subsequent genome DNA (quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction) qPCR detection. The basic concepts behind the four chosen technologies is their versatility, cost, and ease of use in developed and underdeveloped countries. The four methods target the testing of bacterial resilience, cellular extraction from general and complex media and subsequent DNA extraction for qPCR detection and amplification. These results demonstrate that conventional high temperature heating, 903 protein saver cards, and Lyse-It are all viable options for inactivating bacterial growth for safe shipping. Additionally, Lyse-It was found to be particularly useful as this technology can inactivate bacteria, extract cells from 903 protein saver cards, lyse bacterial cells, and additionally keep genomic DNA viable for qPCR detection.
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.