ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2021
Evaluation of the SARS-CoV-2 Inactivation Efficacy Associated With Buffers From Three Kits Used on High-Throughput RNA Extraction Platforms.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Immunomodulatory Properties of Multi-Strain Postbiotics on Human CD14Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Solid-Phase Extraction and Enhanced Amplification-Free Detection of Pathogens Integrated by Multifunctional CRISPR-Cas12a.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2024Article
- Article
- Development and operation of the defence COVID-19 lab as a SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic screening capability for UK military personnel.BMJ military health · 2022Review
- Investigation of mouse hepatitis virus strain A59 inactivation under both ambient and cold environments reveals the mechanisms of infectivity reduction following UVC exposure.Journal of environmental chemical engineering · 2022Article
- Alterations in arthropod and neuronal exosomes reduce virus transmission and replication in recipient cells.Extracellular vesicles and circulating nucleic acids · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid and demonstrable inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial to ensure operator safety during high-throughput testing of clinical samples. The inactivation efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 was evaluated using commercially available lysis buffers from three viral RNA extraction kits used on two high-throughput (96-well) RNA extraction platforms (Qiagen QIAcube HT and the Thermo Fisher KingFisher Flex) in combination with thermal treatment. Buffer volumes and sample ratios were chosen for their optimised suitability for RNA extraction rather than inactivation efficacy and tested against a representative sample type: SARS-CoV-2 spiked into viral transport medium (VTM). A lysis buffer mix from the MagMAX Pathogen RNA/DNA kit (Thermo Fisher), used on the KingFisher Flex, which included guanidinium isothiocyanate (GITC), a detergent, and isopropanol, demonstrated a minimum inactivation efficacy of 1 × 10
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.