ArticleJournal of insect science (Online)2023
Comparison of 3 DNA extraction methods for extracting DNA from an adult Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae).
Article in Journal of insect science (Online), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing Lysis and Extraction Workflows for Enrichment-Free qPCR Detection ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Investigation of malaria vectors Anopheles in non-endemic areas of Thailand: in proximity to workplaces housing foreign migrant workers.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Protocols for DNA Extraction from IndividualMethods and protocols · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare 3 DNA extraction methods: the PureLink Genomic DNA kit, DNAzol Direct reagent, and a microwave-based method, for extracting DNA from an adult Culex quinquefasciatus by focusing on the quantity and purity of DNA, cost, and time required. Ten mosquitoes were individually used for DNA extraction by each method. Based on the results obtained, DNA was extracted from each method using specific primers, resulting in a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) product with a length of 274 bp. The DNA quantity extracted using the DNAzol Direct (179.08 ± 3.77 ng/µl) differs significantly from that of the commercial kit (115.98 ± 4.57 ng/µl) and a microwave-based method (119.26 ± 3.06 ng/µl). The absorbance ratio of DNA extracted using the PureLink Genomic DNA kit, the DNAzol Direct, and the microwave-based methods was 1.92 ± 0.02, 1.79 ± 0.01, and 1.87 ± 0.01, respectively. Among the 3 methods evaluated, the microwave-based method is simpler, less expensive, and more time efficient. This is the first evaluation of the microwave-based method for extracting DNA from an adult mosquito. This study provides a useful guide for alternative DNA extraction methods for PCR-based assays, especially in low-resource settings.
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.