ArticleMolecular genetics and genomics : MGG2024
A rapid, inexpensive and effective method for the efficient isolation of genomic DNA from Gram-negative bacteria.
Article in Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG, 2024. 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.
- Comparative performance of traditional and commercial DNA extraction methods for fish gut microbiota analysis.Molecular biology reports · 2026Article
- Probiotic DNA regulates intestinal Th2 polarization by inducing epithelial cells to produce PD-L1.Apoptosis : an international journal on programmed cell death · 2025Article
- Methodological approaches in 16S sequencing of female reproductive tract in fertility patients: a review.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently, there are several protocols to extract bacterial DNA based on different principles. However, the quantity and the quality of the DNA obtained by each method are highly variable and microorganism dependent. In most of these classical crude methods, highly toxic and hazardous organic solvents such as phenol and chloroform are used for deproteinization, whereas in certain protocols, expensive enzymes including RNases and Proteinases are used. This study was designed to introduce a simple, rapid, inexpensive and effective genomic DNA isolation procedure for Gram-negative bacteria, without the usage of toxic chemicals and costly enzymes. This novel method was compared with another classical method known as the salting-out method, which uses proteinase-K. Concentration and yield of the extracted DNA were determined by gel electrophoresis by comparing the gel band intensity of the sample DNA to that of a DNA quantitation standard and by the Quantus™ fluorometer. According to the results, the yield of extracted DNA was higher in the novel method compared to the salting-out method. Moreover, the entire process was accomplished in less than 2 h with the novel method. Purity and integrity of extracted genomic DNA by both methods were similar. In addition, the quality of DNA was determined using Multicopy Associated Filamentation (MAF) gene amplification by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Thus, the described technique is non-toxic, less time and fund consuming, efficient and a well-suited method for routine DNA isolation from Gram negative bacteria.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38453747What 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.