ArticleJournal of applied microbiology2020
Comparison of five assays for DNA extraction from bacterial cells in human faecal samples.
Article in Journal of applied microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of optimized DNA extraction protocols for the quantification of Eimeria spp. from chicken feces using real-time PCR.Poultry science · 2026Article
- Sex-dependent dysregulation of the gut-brain NPYergic system in a mouse model of autism spectrum disorder.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluation of four DNA extraction kits for implementation of nanopore sequencing in routine surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in low-resource settings.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Does gut microbiota dysbiosis impact the metabolic alterations of hydrogen sulfide and lanthionine in patients with chronic kidney disease?BMC microbiology · 2024Article
- Detection ofMicroorganisms · 2024Article
- Optimized bacterial community characterization through full-length 16S rRNA gene sequencing utilizing MinION nanopore technology.BMC microbiology · 2024Article
- Optimization of a DNA extraction protocol for improving bacterial and fungal classification based on Nanopore sequencing.Access microbiology · 2024Article
- Comparison of four DNA extraction kits efficiency for 16SrDNA microbiota profiling of diverse human samples.Future science OA · 2023Article
- Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) Analysis of Virulence and AMR Genes in Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase (ESBL)-ProducingAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Cost Effective Method for gDNA Isolation from the Cecal Content and High Yield Procedure for RNA Isolation from the Colonic Tissue of Mice.Bio-protocol · 2022Article
- Introduction to the principles and methods underlying the recovery of metagenome-assembled genomes from metagenomic data.MicrobiologyOpen · 2022Review
- Article
- The Multiomics Analyses of Fecal Matrix and Its Significance to Coeliac Disease Gut Profiling.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Isolation and Quantification of Uremic Toxin Precursor-Generating Gut Bacteria in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients.International journal of molecular sciences · 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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo determine the most effective DNA extraction method for bacteria in faecal samples. MATERIALS AND
resultsThis study assessed five commercial methods, that is, NucliSens easyMag, QIAamp DNA Stool Mini kit, PureLink Microbiome DNA purification kit, QIAamp PowerFecal DNA kit and RNeasy PowerMicrobiome kit, of which the latter has been optimized for DNA extraction. The DNA quantity and quality were determined using Nanodrop, Qubit and qPCR. The PowerMicrobiome kit recovered the highest DNA concentration, whereby this kit also recovered the highest gene copy number of Gram positives, Gram negatives and total bacteria. Furthermore, the PowerMicrobiome kit in combination with mechanical pre-treatment (bead beating) and with combined enzymatic and mechanical pre-treatment (proteinase K+mutanolysin+bead beating) was more effective than without pre-treatment.
conclusionFrom the five DNA extraction methods that were compared, the PowerMicrobiome kit, preceded by bead beating, which is standard included, was found to be the most effective DNA extraction method for bacteria in faecal samples. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: The quantity and quality of DNA extracted from human faecal samples is a first important step to optimize molecular methods. Here we have shown that the PowerMicrobiome kit is an effective DNA extraction method for bacterial cells in faecal samples for downstream qPCR purpose.
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.