ArticleMicroorganisms2024
A Comparison of Three Automated Nucleic Acid Extraction Systems for Human Stool Samples.
Article in Microorganisms, 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.
- Article
- Matrix extension to bovine feces and evaluation of semi-automated DNA extraction methods for the detection ofJournal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2026Article
- Basic Microbiome Analysis: Analytical Steps from Sampling to Sequencing.Microorganisms · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Automated nucleic acid extractors are useful instruments for the high-throughput processing of bio-samples and are expected to improve research throughput in addition to decreased inter-sample variability inherent to manual processing. We evaluated three commercial nucleic acid extractors Bioer GenePure Pro (Bioer Technology, Hangzhou, China), Maxwell RSC 16 (Promega Corporation, Madison, WI, USA), and KingFisher Apex (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) based on their DNA yield, DNA purity, and 16S rRNA gene amplicon results using both human fecal samples and a mock community (ZymoBIOMICS Microbial Community Standard (Zymo Research Corp., Irvine, CA, USA)). Bead-beating provided incremental yield to effectively lyse and extract DNA from stool samples compared to lysis buffer alone. Differential abundance analysis and comparison of prevalent bacterial species revealed a greater representation of Gram-positive bacteria in samples subjected to mechanical lysis, regardless of sample type. All three commercial extractors had differences in terms of yield, inter-sample variability, and subsequent sequencing readouts, which we subsequently share in the paper and believe are significant considerations for all researchers undertaking human fecal microbiota research.
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.