ArticlePloS one2022
Comparative analysis of DNA extraction and PCR product purification methods for cervicovaginal microbiome analysis using cpn60 microbial profiling.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- RAPD Markers for the Study of Genetic Diversity in Echium amoenum Ecotypes.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2027Article
- Targeted amplicon sequencing for enhanced detection of spiked Shiga toxin-producingMicrobiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Basic Microbiome Analysis: Analytical Steps from Sampling to Sequencing.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Molecular Characterization of Staphylococcus aureus and Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci Isolates at a Rural Hospital in Southern Malawi.BioMed research international · 2026Article
- Methodological approaches in 16S sequencing of female reproductive tract in fertility patients: a review.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe microbiota of the lower female genital tract plays an important role in women's health. Microbial profiling using the chaperonin60 (cpn60) universal target (UT) improves resolution of vaginal species associated with negative health outcomes compared to the more commonly used 16S ribosomal DNA target. However, the choice of DNA extraction and PCR product purification methods may bias sequencing-based microbial studies and should be optimized for the sample type and molecular target used. In this study, we compared two commercial DNA extraction kits and two commercial PCR product purification kits for the microbial profiling of cervicovaginal samples using the cpn60 UT.
methodsDNA from cervicovaginal secretions and vaginal lavage samples as well as mock community standards were extracted using either the specialized QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit, or the standard DNeasy Blood & Tissue kit with enzymatic pre-treatment for enhanced lysis of gram-positive bacteria. Extracts were PCR amplified using well-established cpn60 primer sets and conditions. Products were then purified using a column-based method (QIAquick PCR Purification Kit) or a gel-based PCR clean-up method using the QIAEX II Gel Extraction Kit. Purified amplicons were sequenced with the MiSeq platform using standard procedures. The overall quality of each method was evaluated by measuring DNA yield, alpha diversity, and microbial composition.
resultsDNA extracted from cervicovaginal samples using the DNeasy Blood and Tissue kit, pre-treated with lysozyme and mutanolysin, resulted in increased DNA yield, bacterial diversity, and species representation compared to the QIAamp DNA Microbiome kit. The column-based PCR product purification approach also resulted in greater average DNA yield and wider species representation compared to a gel-based clean-up method. In conclusion, this study presents a fast, effective sample preparation method for high resolution cpn60 based microbial profiling of cervicovaginal samples.
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.