ArticlePloS one2023
Comparison of DNA concentration and bacterial pathogen PCR detection when using two DNA extraction kits for nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal samples.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Parallel Detection of the Unamplified Carbapenem Resistance GenesBiosensors · 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
9 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSeveral important human pathogens that cause life-threatening infections are asymptomatically carried in the Nasopharynx/Oropharynx (NP/OP). DNA extraction is a prerequisite for most culture-independent techniques used to identify pathogens in the NP/OP. However, components of DNA extraction kits differ thereby giving rise to differences in performance. We compared the DNA concentration and the detection of three pathogens in the NP/OP using the discontinued DNeasy PowerSoil Kit (Kit DP) and the DNeasy PowerLyzer PowerSoil Kit (Kit DPP).
methodsDNA was extracted from the same set of 103 NP/OP samples using the two kits. DNA concentration was measured using the Qubit 2.0 Fluorometer. Real-time Polymerase Chain reaction (RT-PCR) was done using the QuantStudio 7-flex system to detect three pathogens: S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, and N. meningitidis. Bland-Altman statistics and plots were used to determine the threshold cycle (Ct) value agreement for the two kits.
resultsThe average DNA concentration from kit DPP was higher than Kit DP; 1235.6 ng/ml (SD = 1368.3) vs 884.9 ng/ml (SD = 1095.3), p = 0.002. Using a Ct value cutoff of 40 for positivity, the concordance for the presence of S. pneumoniae was 82% (84/102); 94%(96/103) for N. meningitidis and 92%(95/103) for H. influenzae. Kit DP proportionately resulted in higher Ct values than Kit DPP for all pathogens. The Ct value bias of measurement for S. pneumoniae was +2.4 (95% CI, 1.9-3.0), +1.4 (95% CI, 0.9-1.9) for N. meningitidis and +1.4 (95% CI, 0.2-2.5) for H. influenzae.
conclusionThe higher DNA concentration obtained using kit DPP could increase the chances of recovering low abundant bacteria. The PCR results were reproducible for more than 90% of the samples for the gram-negative H. influenzae and N. meningitidis. Ct value variations of the kits must be taken into consideration when comparing studies that have used the two kits.
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.