ArticlePloS one2022
Improved DNA extraction on bamboo paper and cotton is tightly correlated with their crystallinity and hygroscopicity.
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 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The comparison of excision, swabbing, tape-lifting, and scraping as techniques for DNA evidence recovery: A preliminary study.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Article
- Optimizing core needle biopsy specimen collection techniques to enhance molecular testing adequacy in non-small cell lung cancer.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Zwitterionic Poly(sulfobetaine methacrylate) Brushes Functionalized Threads for DNA Extraction from Complex Cell Lysates.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
DNA extraction, a vital pre-requisite for most biological studies, continues to be studied extensively. According to some studies, DNA shows a certain degree of absorbability on filter paper made of plant fiber-based adsorbent material. However, the principle underlying such specific adsorption as well as plant species associated with plant fiber-based adsorbents and optimized extraction conditions have not yet been studied. This study demonstrates the tight correlation between crystallinity and hygroscopicity in plant fiber-based adsorbents used for DNA extraction and proposes the concept of DNA adsorption on plant fiber-based adsorbents, for the first time. We also explored optimal extracting and eluting conditions and developed a novel plant fiber-based DNA extraction method that was quadruple times more powerful than current approaches. Starting with the screening of various types of earthed plant fiber-based adsorbents, we went on to mine new plant fiber-based adsorbents, bamboo paper and degreased cotton, and succeeded in increasing their efficiency of DNA extraction to 4.2 times than that of current approaches. We found a very strong correlation between the crystallinity and hygroscopicity of plant fiber-based adsorbents which showed efficiency for DNA extraction, and thus propose a principle that potentially governs such specific adsorption processes, in the hope that this information may guide related multidisciplinary research studies in the future. Nanodrop, electrophoresis and PCR were selected to demonstrate the quantity, quality, integrity and utility of the extracted DNA. Furthermore, crystallinity, hygroscopicity, pore size distribution and composition of plant fiber-based adsorbents were studied to explore their correlation in an attempt to understand the principle underlying this particular type of adsorption. The findings of this study may be further extended to the extraction of other types of nucleic acids with similar biochemical properties.
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.