ArticlePloS one2022
Comparison of six methods for Loa loa genomic DNA extraction.
Article in PloS one, 2022. 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing a modified cetyltrimethylammonium bromide protocol for fungal DNA extraction: Insights from multilocus gene amplification.Open life sciences · 2025Article
- Expression of BSN314 lysozyme genes in Escherichia coli BL21: a study to demonstrate microbicidal and disintegarting potential of the cloned lysozyme.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesGood-quality and sufficient DNA is essential for diagnostics and vaccine development. We aimed to compare six DNA extraction techniques applied to Loa loa microfilariae in order to evaluate the purity and integrity of extracts in terms of quality and quantity.
methodsThe microfilariae were purified via a Percoll gradient procedure with blood from hyper-microfilaremic individuals (> 30,000 microfilaria [mf]/ml). DNA extraction was carried out in duplicate at a rate of 350,000 mf/tube for each technique: phenol/chloroform, commercial Qiagen kit, salting out, Tris-EDTA, methanol, and cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB). The integrity, purity, concentration, and quality of the DNA extracts were successively verified by agarose gel electrophoresis, spectrophotometry (A260/A280 and A260/A230 wavelength ratio), Qubit fluorometry, and endonuclease and polymerase activity. The six techniques were compared on the basis of the following parameters: concentration, purity, efficiency, effectiveness, integrity, safety of the technique, as well as cost and duration of the protocol.
resultsThe ratios of the optical densities of the extracts A260/A280 and A260/A230 were, respectively: phenol/chloroform (1.82; 1.11), Qiagen (1.93; 1.36), salting-out (1.9; 2.04), Tris-EDTA (1.99; 1.183), methanol (2.126; 1.343), and CTAB (2.01; 2.426). The DNA yield was: phenol/chloroform (3.920 μg), Qiagen (10.280 μg), salting-out (10.390 μg), Tris-EDTA (0.5528 μg), methanol (0.1036 μg), and CTAB (1.115 μg). Endonuclease and polymerase activity was demonstrated by digestion of DNA and through amplicons obtained via polymerase chain reaction assays with phenol/chloroform, Qiagen, and salting-out extracts.
conclusionThe phenol/chloroform, Qiagen, and salting-out DNA extracts were all of good quality. Salting out had the best yield followed by Qiagen and then phenol/chloroform. Endonuclease and polymerase activity was effective in all three extracts despite the presence of some contaminants. These methods are therefore suitable for the extraction of DNA from Loa loa microfilariae. Tris-EDTA and methanol did not show adequate sensitivity, while CTAB was found to be unsuitable.
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.