ArticlePloS one2023
Comparison of DNA extraction methods for COVID-19 host genetics studies.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- CYP2C9-dependent variability in propofol pharmacokinetics and hemodynamic effects: A population-based pharmacogenetic study.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Detection ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Optimizing single molecule, real-time sequencing for enhanced characterization of adeno-associated viral vector genomes.Molecular therapy. Advances · 2026Article
- Draft genome assembly and annotation ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2026Article
- Effect of genetic polymorphism of rosuvastatin transporter gene rs2231137 on its clinical efficacy and safety.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A preliminary evaluation of a fast, low-cost, and high-throughput nucleic acid extraction method for bacterial microbiota profiling in low-microbial biomass samples.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Elucidation of Potential Genotoxicity of MXenes Using a DNA Comet Assay.ACS applied bio materials · 2024Article
- Article
- High frequencies of alpha common cold coronavirus/SARS-CoV-2 cross-reactive functional CD4Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in global shortages in supplies for diagnostic tests, especially in the developing world. Risk factors for COVID-19 severity include pre-existing comorbidities, older age and male sex, but other variables are likely play a role in disease outcome. There is indeed increasing evidence that supports the role of host genetics in the predisposition to COVID-19 outcomes. The identification of genetic factors associated with the course of SARS-CoV-2 infections relies on DNA extraction methods. This study compared three DNA extraction methods (Chelex®100 resin, phenol-chloroform and the QIAamp DNA extraction kit) for COVID-19 host genetic studies using nasopharyngeal samples from patients. The methods were compared regarding number of required steps for execution, sample handling time, quality and quantity of the extracted material and application in genetic studies. The Chelex®100 method was found to be cheapest (33 and 13 times cheaper than the commercial kit and phenol-chloroform, respectively), give the highest DNA yield (306 and 69 times higher than the commercial kit and phenol-chloroform, respectively), with the least handling steps while providing adequate DNA quality for downstream applications. Together, our results show that the Chelex®100 resin is an inexpensive, safe, simple, fast, and suitable method for DNA extraction of nasopharyngeal samples from COVID-19 patients for genetics studies. This is particularly relevant in developing countries where cost and handling are critical steps in material processing.
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.