ArticleACS omega2024
Comparison and Optimization of Simple DNA Extraction Methods for LAMP-Based Point-of-Care Applications Employing Submillimeter Skin Biopsies.
Article in ACS omega, 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 integrated extraction-free LAMP platform with colorimetric, real-time, and immunochromatographic strip detection for rapid male-specific DNA screening in forensic triage.Analytical sciences : the international journal of the Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a species-specific loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay for rapid detection of Perkinsus marinus.Parasites, hosts and diseases · 2026Article
- Point-of-Care Extraction-Free Sample Preparation for Recombinase Polymerase Amplification of Nucleic Acid Targets in Buccal Swabs or Blood.ACS omega · 2025Article
- Comparison of boiling versus magnetic bead techniques in nucleic acid extraction for human papillomavirus detection: evidence based 17,179 cases.Virology journal · 2025Article
- Skin biopsy processing for rapid molecular diagnosis and histopathologic interpretation: application to Kaposi sarcoma in East Africa.Infectious agents and cancer · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) has gained particular attention for point-of-care (POC) applications due to its advantages over traditional nucleic acid testing approaches. However, a prevailing limitation of LAMP in POC applications is nucleic acid extraction from the sample prior to analysis. This is particularly true for complex samples such as submillimeter skin biopsies where lysis and digestion involve intricate and lengthy procedures. The objective of this study was to compare alternative methodologies against the spin-column laboratory standard and evaluate them based on the World Health Organization ASSURED criteria for POC testing. Four methods-magnetic bead extraction, alkaline extraction, proteinase K-heat inactivation extraction, and boiling method extraction-were optimized utilizing porcine skin submillimeter punch biopsies and subsequently validated on human skin. Results show that both alkaline extraction and proteinase K-heat inactivation produce DNA yields equivalent to or higher than the spin-column method in porcine and human skin. When evaluated against the ASSURED criteria, both methods demonstrated low complexity while being highly scalable and readily accessible. Overall, this comparative study established a robust framework for selecting DNA extraction methods for submillimeter skin biopsies in POC applications. It also underscored the performance of the alkaline extraction method based on the ASSURED criteria, providing equivalent DNA yields to laboratory standards with reduced complexity and potential for cost-effective scalability.
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.