ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2020
Efficiency of chemical versus mechanical disruption methods of DNA extraction for the identification of oral Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pathogen to read: a rapid, automated workflow for public health-ready microbial sequencing.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Extraoral Detection of Biomarkers and Pathogens in Saliva: Comprehensive, Panoramic Review.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Comparative Evaluation of Rapid Nucleic Acids Extraction Methods for Biosensor-Based Point-of-Care Solutions.Biosensors · 2026Article
- The impact of DNA extraction methods on species quantification and apparent community composition of in vitro oral biofilms.FEMS microbiology letters · 2026Article
- A dual-loop chemostat to investigate multi-species biofilms on implant surfaces under adjustable flow conditions.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Development and optimization of host DNA depletion in blood cultures using a saponin and salt-activated nuclease-based method.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Oral microbiota among treatment-naïve adolescents with depression: A case-control study.Journal of affective disorders · 2025Article
- Impact of DNA Extraction Methods on Gut Microbiome Profiles: A Comparative Metagenomic Study.Phenomics (Cham, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of DNA extraction kits for long-read shotgun metagenomics using Oxford Nanopore sequencing for rapid taxonomic and antimicrobial resistance detection.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Cross-comparison of gut metagenomic profiling strategies.Communications biology · 2024Article
- High-throughput DNA extraction strategy for fecal microbiome studies.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Enhancing Clinical Utility: Utilization of International Standards and Guidelines for Metagenomic Sequencing in Infectious Disease Diagnosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Phytochemical Analysis and Anti-Biofilm Potential That Cause Dental Caries from Black Cumin Seeds (Drug design, development and therapy · 2024Review
- Evaluation of cell disruption methods for protein and coenzyme Q10 quantification in purple non-sulfur bacteria.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- When the host's away, the pathogen will play: the protective role of the skin microbiome during hibernation.Animal microbiome · 2023Review
- The clinical utility of Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing for direct bacterial identification in normally sterile body fluids.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Article
- Developing whole cell standards for the microbiome field.Microbiome · 2022Article
- Article
- Evaluation of RNAMicrobiology spectrum · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveClinical diagnostics often requires the detection of multiple bacterial species in limited clinical samples with a single DNA extraction method. This study aimed to compare the bacterial DNA extraction efficiency of two lysis methods automated with the MagNA-Pure LC instrument. The samples included five oral bacterial species (three Gram-positive and two Gram-negative) with or without human saliva background.
methodsGenomic DNA (gDNA) was extracted from bacterial cultures by bead-beating lysis (BMP) or chemical lysis (MP), followed by automated purification and measurement by quantitative PCR.
resultsFor pure bacterial cultures, the MP method yielded higher quantities of extracted DNA and a lower detection limit than the BMP method, except where the samples contained high numbers of Gram-positive bacteria. For bacterial cultures with a saliva background, no difference in gDNA extraction efficacy was observed between the two methods.
conclusionsThe efficiency of a bacterial DNA extraction method is not only affected by the bacterial cell wall structure but also by the sample milieu. The MP method provided superior gDNA extraction efficiency when the samples contained a single bacterial species, whereas either of the BMP and MP methods could be applied with similar efficiencies to samples containing multiple species of bacteria.
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.