ArticleArchives of microbiology2024
Comparative analysis of commercially available kits for optimal DNA extraction from bovine fecal samples.
Article in Archives of microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Efficient Workflow for Fungal Nucleic Acid Detection in Sputum.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Phenotypic and molecular characterization of Salmonella enterica isolated from retail beef in Peshawar, Pakistan.PloS one · 2026Article
- Pharmacomicrobiomics.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Review
- Changes in the gut microbiome due to diarrhea in neonatal Korean indigenous calves.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Microbiome dysbiosis and endometriosis: a systematic scoping review of current literature and knowledge gaps.Human reproduction open · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the field of metagenomic research, the choice of DNA extraction methods plays a pivotal yet often underestimated role in shaping the reliability and interpretability of microbial community data. This study delves into the impact of five commercially available DNA extraction kits on the analysis of bovine fecal microbiota. Recognizing the importance of accurate DNA extraction in elucidating microbial community dynamics, we systematically assessed DNA yield, quality, and microbial composition across these kits using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Notably, the FastDNA spin soil kit yielded the highest DNA concentration, while significant variations in quality were observed across kits. Furthermore, differential abundance analysis revealed kit-specific biases that impacted taxa representation. Microbial richness and diversity were significantly influenced by the choice of extraction kit, with QIAamp DNA stool minikit, QIAamp Power Pro, and DNeasy PowerSoil outperforming the Stool DNA Kit. Principal-coordinate analysis revealed distinct clustering based on DNA isolation procedures, particularly highlighting the unique microbial community composition derived from the Stool DNA Kit. This study also addressed practical implications, demonstrating how kit selection influences the concentration of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial taxa in samples. This research highlights the need for consideration of DNA extraction kits in metagenomic studies, offering valuable insights for researchers striving to advance the precision and depth of microbiota analyses in ruminants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38900289What 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.