Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38885212›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Comparison of DeNovix, NanoDrop and Qubit for DNA quantification and impurity detection of bacterial DNA extracts.

Nick Versmessen, Leen Van Simaey, Abel Abera Negash, Marjolein Vandekerckhove, Paco Hulpiau, Mario Vaneechoutte, Piet Cools

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Temperature regulation mechanisms of diapause inFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Article
  12. Frontiers in plant science · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The complete chloroplast genome sequence of theMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2025
    Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

Nick VersmessenLaboratory Bacteriology Research, Department of Diagnostic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-9829-8236
Leen Van SimaeyLaboratory Bacteriology Research, Department of Diagnostic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Abel Abera NegashArmauer Hansen Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Marjolein VandekerckhoveHOWEST University of Applied Sciences, Bruges, Belgium.
Paco HulpiauHOWEST University of Applied Sciences, Bruges, Belgium.
Mario VaneechoutteLaboratory Bacteriology Research, Department of Diagnostic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Piet CoolsLaboratory Bacteriology Research, Department of Diagnostic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-2980-5307

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate DNA quantification is key for downstream application including library preparations for whole genome sequencing (WGS) and the quantification of standards for quantitative PCR. Two commonly used technologies for nucleic acid quantification are based on spectrometry, such as NanoDrop, and fluorometry, such as Qubit. The DS-11+ Series spectrophotometer/fluorometer (DeNovix) is a UV spectrophotometry-based instrument and is a relatively new spectrophotometric method but has not yet been compared to established platforms. Here, we compared three DNA quantification platforms, including two UV spectrophotometry-based techniques (DeNovix and NanoDrop) and one fluorometry-based approach (Qubit). We used genomic prokaryotic DNA extracted from Streptococcus pneumoniae using a Roche DNA extraction kit. We also evaluated purity assessment and effect of a single freeze-thaw cycle. Spectrophotometry-based methods reported 3 to 4-fold higher mean DNA concentrations compared to Qubit, both before and after freezing. The ratio of DNA concentrations assessed by spectrophotometry on the one hand, and Qubit on the other hand, was function of the A260/280. In case DNA was pure (A260/280 between 1.7 and 2.0), the ratio DeNovix or Nanodrop vs. Qubit was close or equal to 2, while this ratio showed an incline for DNA with increasing A260/280 values > 2.0. The A260/280 and A260/230 purity ratios exhibited negligible variation across spectrophotometric methods and freezing conditions. The comparison of DNA concentrations from before and after freezing revealed no statistically significant disparities for each technique. DeNovix exhibited the highest Spearman correlation coefficient (0.999), followed by NanoDrop (0.81), and Qubit (0.77). In summary, there is no difference between DeNovix and NanoDrop in estimated gDNA concentrations of S. pneumoniae, and the spectrophotometry methods estimated close or equal to 2 times higher concentrations compared to Qubit for pure DNA.

Indexed as

DNA, BacterialStreptococcus pneumoniaeBacterial LysatesFluorometrySpectrophotometrySpectrophotometry, UltravioletBacterial LysatesDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID38885212
PMCPMC11182499

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.