ArticleAccess microbiology2023
Evaluation of five commercial DNA extraction kits using
Article in Access microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nanopore metagenomic sequencing links clinically relevant resistance determinants to pathogens.Microbial genomics · 2026Article
- Benchmarking DNA extraction protocols across use cases for culture-independent Nanopore metagenomics.Microbial genomics · 2026Article
- Resolving plasmid-encoded carbapenem resistance dynamics and reservoirs in a hospital setting through nanopore sequencing.Microbial genomics · 2026Article
- Taxonomic Characterization, Whole-Genome Sequencing, and Cosmetic Potential ofMicroorganisms · 2025Article
- Refined Procedure to Purify and Sequence Circulating Cell-Free DNA in Prostate Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Standardization of 16S rRNA gene sequencing using nanopore long read sequencing technology for clinical diagnosis of culture negative infections.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Nanopore sequencing in veterinary medicine: from concepts to clinical applications.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Review
- Evaluation of four DNA extraction kits for implementation of nanopore sequencing in routine surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in low-resource settings.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of commercial DNA isolation approaches for nanopore-only bacterial genome assembly and plasmid recovery.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Bridging Classical Methodologies inMicroorganisms · 2024Review
- Evaluation of Commercial RNA Extraction Protocols for Avian Influenza Virus Using Nanopore Metagenomic Sequencing.Viruses · 2024Article
- Can long-read sequencing tackle the barriers, which the next-generation could not? A review.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oxford Nanopore long-read sequencing offers advantages over Illumina short reads for the identification and characterization of bacterial pathogens for outbreak detection and surveillance activities within a diagnostic public health laboratory context. Compared to Illumina, Nanopore is more cost-effective for small batches, has a lower capital cost and has a faster turnaround time, in addition to the ability to assemble complete bacterial genomes. The quantity and quality of DNA required for Nanopore sequencing are greater than for Illumina, and the DNA extraction methods recommended for obtaining high-molecular-weight DNA are different from those typically used in diagnostic laboratories. Using a
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.