ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2021
Comparison of methods for isolating fungal DNA.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unveiling Mucorales infections: A cutting-edge longitudinal imaging approach for real-time infection and host-response monitoring inVirulence · 2026Article
- Rapid Metagenomic Sequencing of Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid for Diagnosis of Infection in Patients With Hematologic Malignancies and Pulmonary Complications.CHEST pulmonary · 2025Article
- Article
- Diagnosis and management of invasive fungal diseases by next-generation sequencing: are we there yet?Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2024Review
- A Rapid and Specific Real-Time PCR Assay for the Detection of Clinically Relevant Mucorales Species.International 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe main aim of this work was to compare the methods of DNA isolation in the moulds of genus
designFive DNA extraction procedures were carried out in a Class 2 Biosafety cabinet in a dedicated room with suitable biosafety precautions and appropriate biowaste disposal methods. A total of 6
resultsFrom the viewpoint of concentration and purity, methods A shown abundant amount of fungal DNA whereas methods E report a pure fungal DNA with R260/280 of 1.7 near the optimal 1.8. The DNA quantity reach statistically difference at ANOVA test with p value 0.0005.
conclusionOverall, the E method was the most efficient method in the extraction of DNA from fungal cultures compared to the other methods considering time, cost, technical expertise, and instrumentation. Use of this assay will allow researchers to obtain DNA from fungi quickly for use in molecular assays.
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.