ArticleScientific reports2021
A common protocol for the simultaneous processing of multiple clinically relevant bacterial species for whole genome sequencing.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Draft genome sequence ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2026Article
- Whole Genome Analyses Accurately IdentifyInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Whole-genome sequencing is likely to become increasingly used by local clinical microbiology laboratories, where sequencing volume is low compared with national reference laboratories. Here, we describe a universal protocol for simultaneous DNA extraction and sequencing of numerous different bacterial species, allowing mixed species sequence runs to meet variable laboratory demand. We assembled test panels representing 20 clinically relevant bacterial species. The DNA extraction process used the QIAamp mini DNA kit, to which different combinations of reagents were added. Thereafter, a common protocol was used for library preparation and sequencing. The addition of lysostaphin, lysozyme or buffer ATL (a tissue lysis buffer) alone did not produce sufficient DNA for library preparation across the species tested. By contrast, lysozyme plus lysostaphin produced sufficient DNA across all 20 species. DNA from 15 of 20 species could be extracted from a 24-h culture plate, while the remainder required 48-72 h. The process demonstrated 100% reproducibility. Sequencing of the resulting DNA was used to recapitulate previous findings for species, outbreak detection, antimicrobial resistance gene detection and capsular type. This single protocol for simultaneous processing and sequencing of multiple bacterial species supports low volume and rapid turnaround time by local clinical microbiology laboratories.
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.