Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37006230›Full record

ArticleFuture science OA2023

Comparison of four DNA extraction kits efficiency for 16SrDNA microbiota profiling of diverse human samples.

Sandrine Le Gall-David, Gaëlle Boudry, Sylvie Buffet-Bataillon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Future science OA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Similar intraoperative microbiomes inFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Welcome to volume 10 ofFuture science OA · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Prevalence estimation of Tropheryma whipplei in duodenal biopsy tissues of Koreans.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sandrine Le Gall-DavidInstitut Numecan, INSERM, INRAE, Univ Rennes, Rennes, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5493-3429
Gaëlle BoudryInstitut Numecan, INSERM, INRAE, Univ Rennes, Rennes, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5287-571X
Sylvie Buffet-BataillonInstitut Numecan, INSERM, INRAE, Univ Rennes, Rennes, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0482-6945

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: The current study investigated the performance of 4 widely used DNA extraction kits using different types of high (stool) and low biomass samples (chyme, broncho alveolar lavage and sputum). Methods: Qiagen Powerfecal Pro DNA kit, Macherey Nucleospin Soil kit, Macherey Nucleospin Tissue Kit and MagnaPure LC DNA isolation kit III were evaluated in terms of DNA quantity, quality, diversity and composition profiles. Results: The quantity and quality of DNA varied among the four kits. The microbiota of the stool samples showed similar diversity and compositional profiles for the 4 kits. Conclusion: Despite differences in DNA quality and quantity, the 4 kits yielded similar results for stool samples, while all kits were not sensitive enough for low biomass samples.

Indexed as

16S rRNA gene sequencingbacterial DNA extractionbead-beatingdata analysisDNA bindingenzymatic lysishuman microbiotaIlluminalow biomassnext generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID37006230
PMCPMC10051199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.