ArticleVirology journal2024
Development and validation of a rapid five-minute nucleic acid extraction method for respiratory viruses.
Article in Virology journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in rapid detection technologies for zoonotic diseases: a one health-oriented review.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Comparison of boiling versus magnetic bead techniques in nucleic acid extraction for human papillomavirus detection: evidence based 17,179 cases.Virology journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe rapid transmission and high pathogenicity of respiratory viruses significantly impact the health of both children and adults. Extracting and detecting their nucleic acid is crucial for disease prevention and treatment strategies. However, current extraction methods are laborious and time-consuming and show significant variations in nucleic acid content and purity among different kits, affecting detection sensitivity and efficiency. Our aim is to develop a novel method that reduces extraction time, simplifies operational steps, and ensures high-quality acquisition of respiratory viral nucleic acid.
methodsWe extracted respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) nucleic acid using reagents with different components and analyzed cycle threshold (Ct) values via quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) to optimize and validate the novel lysis and washing solution. The performance of this method was compared against magnetic bead, spin column, and precipitation methods for extracting nucleic acid from various respiratory viruses. The clinical utility of this method was confirmed by comparing it to the standard magnetic bead method for extracting clinical specimens of influenza A virus (IAV).
resultsThe solution, composed of equal parts glycerin and ethanol (50% each), offers an innovative washing approach that achieved comparable efficacy to conventional methods in a single abbreviated cycle. When combined with our A Plus lysis solution, our novel five-minute nucleic acid extraction (FME) method for respiratory viruses yielded superior RNA concentrations and purity compared to traditional methods. FME, when used with a universal automatic nucleic acid extractor, demonstrated similar efficiency as various conventional methods in analyzing diverse concentrations of respiratory viruses. In detecting respiratory specimens from 525 patients suspected of IAV infection, the FME method showed an equivalent detection rate to the standard magnetic bead method, with a total coincidence rate of 95.43% and a kappa statistic of 0.901 (P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe FME developed in this study enables the rapid and efficient extraction of nucleic acid from respiratory samples, laying a crucial foundation for the implementation of expedited molecular diagnosis.
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.