ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2022
Evaluation of different DNA extraction methods based on steel-bullet beating for molecular diagnosis of onychomycosis.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Direct molecular analysis ofCurrent medical mycology · 2023Article
- Evaluation of different DNA extraction methods based on steel-bullet beating for molecular diagnosis of onychomycosis.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConsidering increased trends toward molecular methods for detection/identification of fungi causing onychomycosis, the aim of this study is comparison three DNA extraction methods based on steel-bullet beating to extract DNA from nail.
methodsEx -vivo onychomycosis model was developed using bovine hoof with Candida albicans and Aspergillus flavus. For two models, total DNA was extracted using the three different methods. In method 1, the extraction and purification were performed by steel-bullet beating and phenol chloroform protocol, respectively. In method 2, a freezing step were applied before beating. The purification step in method 3 was carried out using a commercial kit, although DNA extraction was done similarly to method 1 in that approach. To evaluate the efficacy of each method, the extracted genomic DNA was amplified with Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) using Internal Transcribed Spacer (ITS) regions. Moreover, 50 nail samples were evaluated for onychomycosis using direct microscopy examination as well as PCR in order to evaluate the diagnostic efficiency of the optimal DNA extraction method.
resultsRegarding the desirable quality of the extracted DNA, cost effectiveness, and simplicity, method 1 could be used to extract DNA effectively. Additionally, the obtained data showed that PCR had a higher detection rate of fungal agents in the nail samples than direct microscopic examination.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated that the mechanical disruption of the cell wall by steel-bullet beating is a useful and practical method to improve the quantity and quality of fungal DNA thorough the extraction process.
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.