ArticlePloS one2023
Quality analysis of genomic DNA and authentication of fisheries products based on distinct methods of DNA extraction.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating effects of tissue type, preservation method, and decomposition on DNA quality to support genetic sampling in stranded small cetaceans.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- How thyme thrives under drought: insights into photosynthetic and membrane-protective mechanisms.BMC biotechnology · 2025Article
- Zwitterionic Poly(sulfobetaine methacrylate) Brushes Functionalized Threads for DNA Extraction from Complex Cell Lysates.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Endophytic seed pretreatment: a strategy for boosting morphophysiological traits in tomato seedlings.BMC plant biology · 2025Article
- A highly cost-effective, eco-friendly tissue lysis and extraction method for faster DNA isolation from fish fin.PloS one · 2025Article
- Integrated morphometric and molecular approaches to screen hybrid from wild Labeo rohita and Labeo catla parent populations.Molecular biology reports · 2024Article
- DNA barcode reveals occurrence of threatened species and hidden diversity on Teleost fish trade in the Coastal Amazon.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Pipette-Free and Fully Integrated Paper Device Employing DNA Extraction, Isothermal Amplification, and Carmoisine-Based Colorimetric Detection for Determining Infectious Pathogens.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Molecular genetic techniques are an effective monitoring tool, but high-quality DNA samples are usually required. In this study, we compared three different protocols of DNA extraction: NaCl (saline); phenol-chloroform and commercial kit (Promega)-from three biological tissues of five individuals of Lutjanus purpureus under two methods of storage. The evaluated items included DNA concentration and purity, processing time and cost, as well as the obtaining of functional sequences. The highest average values of DNA concentration were obtained using the saline procedure and the commercial kit. Pure DNA was only obtained using the saline protocol, evaluated by the ratio of 260/280. The saline and phenol-chloroform protocols were the least expensive methods. The commercial kit costs are counterbalanced by the short time required. The procedure based on phenol-chloroform presented the worst results regarding DNA yield and the time required to perform all steps. The saline and commercial kit protocols showed similar results concerning the amount and quality of extracted DNA. Therefore, the final choice should be based on the available financial resources and the available time for carrying out each procedure of DNA extraction.
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.