ArticleWorld journal of clinical oncology2019
DNA extraction from paraffin embedded colorectal carcinoma samples: A comparison study of manual
Article in World journal of clinical oncology, 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genomic DNA Extraction from Different Human Tissue Sample: Urine, Oral Gargle, Blood, and Cervical for Real Time Amplification by qPCR.Indian journal of clinical biochemistry : IJCB · 2025Article
- Article
- High frequency of enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis and Enterococcus faecalis in the paraffin-embedded tissues of Iranian colorectal cancer patients.BMC cancer · 2021Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNucleic acid isolation from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue (FFPET) samples is a daily routine in molecular pathology laboratories, but extraction from FFPET is not always easily achieved. Choosing the right extraction technique is key for further examinations.
aimTo compare the performance of four commercially available kits used for DNA extraction in routine practice.
methodsDNA isolation was performed on 46 randomly selected formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) colorectal adenocarcinoma (CRC) surgical specimens. Four commercially available extraction kits were used: two for manual DNA extraction (the PureLink Genomic DNA Mini Kit from Invitrogen and the High Pure FFPE DNA Isolation Kit from Roche) and two for automated DNA extraction (the iPrep Genomic DNA Kit from Invitrogen and the MagnaPure LC DNA Isolation Kit from Roche). The DNA concentration and quality (odds ratio) among the four systems were compared. The results were correlated with the clinicopathological aspects of CRC cases: age, gender, localization, macro- and microscopic features, lymph node metastases, and the lymph node ratio.
resultsThe highest DNA concentration was obtained using the manual kits: 157.24 ± 62.99 ng/µL for the PureLink Genomic DNA Mini Kit and 86.64 ng/µL ± 43.84 for the High Pure FFPE DNA Isolation Kit (
conclusionFor research or diagnosis that needs high DNA concentrations, manual methods of DNA isolation should be used. A higher amount of DNA can be obtained from polypoid-type differentiated CRCs. Automated systems confer comfort and a lower amount of DNA that is, however, sufficient for classic polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and real-time quantitative PCR molecular examinations. All four commercially available kits can be successfully used in daily practice.
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.