Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33005038›Full record

ArticleNature protocols2020

Rapid (30-second), equipment-free purification of nucleic acids using easy-to-make dipsticks.

Michael G Mason, José R Botella

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature protocols, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Rapid On-Site Detection ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Quantitative metagenomics using a portable protocol.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Michael G MasonPlant Genetic Engineering Laboratory, School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia. michael.mason@uq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5860-7989
José R BotellaPlant Genetic Engineering Laboratory, School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia. j.botella@uq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4446-3432

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The complexity of current nucleic acid isolation methods limits their use outside of the modern laboratory environment. Here, we describe a fast and affordable method to purify nucleic acids from animal, plant, viral and microbial samples using a cellulose-based dipstick. Nucleic acids can be purified by dipping in-house-made dipsticks into just three solutions: the extract (to bind the nucleic acids), a wash buffer (to remove impurities) and the amplification reaction (to elute the nucleic acids). The speed and simplicity of this method make it ideally suited for molecular applications, both within and outside the laboratory, including limited-resource settings such as remote field sites and teaching institutions. Detailed instructions for how to easily manufacture large numbers of dipsticks in house are provided. Using the instructions, readers can create more than 200 dipsticks in <30 min and perform dipstick-based nucleic acid purifications in 30 s.

Indexed as

AnimalsBacteriaCelluloseHumansNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesNucleic AcidsPlantsTime FactorsVirusesCelluloseNucleic Acids

Identifiers

PMID33005038
PMCPMC7528719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.