ArticleMethods and protocols2022
Comparison of the Effectiveness of Four Commercial DNA Extraction Kits on Fresh and Frozen Human Milk Samples.
Article in Methods and protocols, 2022. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accessing the DNA in Breast Tissue: Adhesive Cell Capture from Flow onto Fibers of Cellulose Papers.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2026Article
- Evaluation of commercial kits and purification approaches for DNA extraction from atmospheric samples for 3rd generation sequencing without amplification.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Basic concepts, recent advances, and future perspectives in the diagnosis of bovine mastitis.Journal of veterinary science · 2024Review
- Improvement and Validation of a Genomic DNA Extraction Method for Human Breastmilk.Methods and protocols · 2023Article
- Identification of Bulgarian Sourdough Microbiota by Metagenomic Approach Using Three Commercially Available DNA Extraction Protocols.Food technology and biotechnology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For-profit donor human milk organizations have DNA-based proprietary methodology for testing incoming milk for adulteration with other species' milk. However, there is currently no standardized methodology for extracting DNA from human milk. Microbiome research has shown that DNA purity and quantity can vary depending on the extraction methodology and storage conditions. This study assessed the purity and quantity of DNA extracted from four commercially available DNA extraction kits-including one kit that was developed for human milk. This study was for method validation only. One donor provided a 90 mL human milk sample. The sample was aliquoted into 70 × 1 mL microcentrifuge tubes. Aliquots were randomized into one of three categories: fresh extraction, extraction after freezing, and extraction after purification and storage at room temperature. DNA was analyzed for purity and quantity using a NanoDrop Spectrophotometer. Results confirmed differences in DNA purity and quantity between extraction kits. The Plasma/Serum Circulating DNA Purification Mini Kit (Norgen Biotek, ON, Canada) provided significantly more DNA, and consistent purity as measured by 260/280 and 260/230 ratios. DNA quantity and purity were similar between fresh and frozen human milk samples. These results suggest that DNA purity and quantity is highest and most consistent when extracted from human milk using the Plasma/Serum Circulating DNA Purification Mini Kit amongst the kits tested in this study. Standardized methodology for extracting DNA from human milk is necessary for improvement of research in the field of human milk. To do this, future studies are recommended for optimization of DNA extraction from human milk using larger sample sizes and multiple donor parents.
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.