ArticlePloS one2021
Evaluation of two automated low-cost RNA extraction protocols for SARS-CoV-2 detection.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- An inexpensive semi-automated sample processing pipeline for cell-free RNA extraction.Nature protocols · 2023Review
- Agnostic Sequencing for Detection of Viral Pathogens.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2023Review
- Extraction Bottleneck in the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2: Evaluation of an Alternative Protocol Derived from Veterinary Use.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- Strategies for Scaling up SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Testing Capacity.Clinics in laboratory medicine · 2022Review
- Homebrew: An economical and sensitive glassmilk-based nucleic-acid extraction method for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics.Cell reports methods · 2022Article
- A fast and cheap in-house magnetic bead RNA extraction method for COVID-19 diagnosis.Journal of virological methods · 2022Article
- SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostics Based on Nucleic Acids Amplification: From Fundamental Concepts to Applications and Beyond.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Review
- Evaluation and comparison of the sensitivity of three commercial RT-qPCR kits used for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Santiago, Chile.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Implementation of an open-source robotic platform for SARS-CoV-2 testing by real-time RT-PCR.PloS one · 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
backgroundTwo automatable in-house protocols for high-troughput RNA extraction from nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection have been evaluated.
methodsOne hundred forty one SARS-CoV-2 positive samples were collected during a period of 10-days. In-house protocols were based on extraction with magnetic beads and designed to be used with either the Opentrons OT-2 (OT-2in-house) liquid handling robot or the MagMAXTM Express-96 system (MMin-house). Both protocols were tested in parallel with a commercial kit that uses the MagMAXTM system (MMkit). Nucleic acid extraction efficiencies were calculated from a SARS-CoV-2 DNA positive control.
resultsNo significant differences were found between both in-house protocols and the commercial kit in their performance to detect positive samples. The MMkit was the most efficient although the MMin-house presented, in average, lower Cts than the other two. In-house protocols allowed to save between 350€ and 400€ for every 96 extracted samples compared to the commercial kit.
conclusionThe protocols described harness the use of easily available reagents and an open-source liquid handling system and are suitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection in high throughput facilities.
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.