ArticleIndian journal of dermatology
Development of a Rapid and Low-Cost Method for the Extraction of Dermatophyte DNA.
Article in Indian journal of dermatology. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Metagenomic and Genomic Analyses Reveal Prevalent Spread and Evolution of the Bat White-Nose PathogenJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- From Permits to Samples: Addressing Key Challenges for High-Quality Reference Genome Generation in Europe.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Review
- Dual-Emission FRET-PCR Outperforms SYBR Green and EvaGreen for Accurate Discrimination of Primary Canine Dermatophytes:Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Resistance & virulence traits in dermatophytes isolated from Mangaluru, India.The Indian journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Diagnostic ability of Peptidase S8 gene in the Arthrodermataceae causing dermatophytoses: A metadata analysis.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is the most optimized method for the rapid detection and analysis of any environmental or clinically significant organism. While PCR amplification directly from samples has been shown effective for several bacteria and viruses, for filamentous fungus and yeast, extraction of genomic DNA is a must. The extraction of DNA from fungal cultures is often reported using user-friendly commercially available kits, which are designed to decrease the time, extensive manual work in extraction procedures but are often expensive. Dermatophytes pose an added drawback to efficient DNA extraction due to their poor recovery on culture media and slow growth rate. Aims and Objectives: In the present study, we developed and validated a method for effective genomic DNA extraction from dermatophytes. Materials and Methods: DNA yield from standard dermatophytes extracted from spore suspensions and mycelia mat by commercially available kits was compared. A modified method using lyticase buffer and phenol-chloroform extraction was developed. The yield obtained was compared with the existing methods (kit-based method and cetyl trimethyl ammonium bromide method). The yield and quality of the total genomic DNA were estimated spectrophotometrically and by successful PCR amplification of the ITS region. The results were validated using 21 clinical isolates from recalcitrant dermatophytosis. Results: Minimal fungal DNA was obtained from the spores compared to that obtained from mycelial mat. Commercially available kits yielded lower amounts of DNA compared to the CATB method. The modified method developed in this study yielded better quality and quantity of DNA. Conclusion: Of the three extraction methods evaluated, the developed method gave significantly higher total genomic DNA yield and better purity than the reference methods. In addition, the turnaround time for DNA extraction was reduced to half based on modifications in culture conditions.
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.