ArticleMolecular biology reports2023
An efficient, fast and inexpensive method for genomic DNA extraction of fish tissue.
Article in Molecular biology reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDNA extraction is an essential step for many genetic techniques like PCR and other molecular analyses. Based on the method of extraction and type of tissue used, the quality of extracted DNA for genetic studies varies. An appropriate extraction method is evaluated by the high concentration and purity of DNA. Thus, this study aimed to find a more efficient and effective method of DNA extraction from fish tissues and compare it to commercially available kits. METHODS AND
resultsA total of 200 fish tissue samples were extracted using each method and then validated with restriction enzymes and PCR amplification. The result revealed that the mean quantity of the isolated genomic DNA, when measured by Nanodrop for grass and common carp, was estimated at (624.41 ± 34.51) µg/ml and (651.27 ± 46.31) µg/ml, respectively, and the purity of this DNA was about (1.83 ± 0.04) and (1.88 ± 0.03) respectively, as compared to commercial extraction kits. Furthermore, gel electrophoresis was performed on the PCR-ready DNA, and the results were confirmed with restriction enzymes and PCR amplification. Based on results obtained from restriction enzymes and PCR analysis, it was determined that no significant inhibitors existed for the enzymes that were used in molecular biology reactions.
conclusionAs a result, this technique provides an efficient and versatile alternative to the traditional method for obtaining bulk amounts of highly qualified DNA from fish tissue and can be easily used for subsequent analyses such as PCR and several molecular experiments on other fish species.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36826682What 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.