ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2025
Optimizing extraction of microbial DNA from urine: Advancing urinary microbiome research in bladder cancer.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating diagnostic performance of urinary biomarkers in the surveillance of non-muscle invasive bladder carcinoma: A systematic review.Investigative and clinical urology · 2025Pooled it
- Methodological bias shapes the interpretation of the urinary microbiome in low-biomass systems.Frontiers in microbiology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate and optimize microbial DNA extraction methods from urine, a non-invasive sample source, to enhance DNA quality, purity, and reliability for urinary microbiome research and biomarker discovery in bladder cancer. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 302 individuals (258 with genitourinary cancers and 44 with benign urologic diseases) participated in this study. Urine samples were collected via sterile catheterization, resulting in 445 vials for microbial analysis. DNA extraction was performed using three protocols: the standard protocol (SP), water dilution protocol (WDP), and chelation-assisted protocol (CAP). DNA quality (concentration, purity, and contamination levels) was assessed using NanoDrop spectrophotometry. Microbial analysis was conducted on 138 samples (108 cancerous and 30 benign) using 16S rRNA sequencing. Prior to sequencing on the Illumina MiSeq platform, Victor 3 fluorometry was used for validation.
resultsWDP outperformed other methods, achieving significantly higher 260/280 and 260/230 ratios, indicating superior DNA purity and reduced contamination, while maintaining reliable DNA yields. CAP was excluded due to poor performance across all metrics. Microbial abundance was significantly higher in WDP-extracted samples (p<0.0001), whereas SP demonstrated higher alpha diversity indices (p<0.01), likely due to improved detection of low-abundance taxa. Beta diversity analysis showed no significant compositional differences between SP and WDP (p=1.0), supporting the reliability of WDP for microbiome research.
conclusionsWDP is a highly effective and reliable method for microbial DNA extraction from urine, ensuring high-quality and reproducible results. Future research should address sample variability and crystal precipitation to further refine microbiome-based diagnostics and therapeutics.
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.