ArticleJournal of oral microbiology2025
Comparative pilot study of three commercial kits for bacterial DNA extraction from human subgingival biofilm samples collected with a single paper point.
Article in Journal of oral microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The impact of DNA extraction methods on species quantification and apparent community composition of in vitro oral biofilms.FEMS microbiology letters · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: In periodontal research, subgingival biofilm samples are typically collected using sterile paper points and pooled for molecular analyses. Streamlining this process by using a single paper point for molecular analysis could simplify sample collection and allow additional paper points to be used for other investigations. This pilot study evaluated the performance of three commercial DNA extraction kits for analysing small sample volumes (<10 µL). Methods: Samples were collected from six participants, each contributing 18 paper points from both healthy and periodontitis-affected sites. Bacterial and human DNA yields were quantified using fluorometric measurements combined with qPCR, employing universal 16S primers for bacterial DNA and human-specific GAPDH primers. Results: Among the tested kits, the DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit demonstrated the highest efficiency, yielding significantly more total dsDNA in samples from healthy sites compared to both other kits and in samples from periodontitis-affected sites compared to one kit. Bacterial DNA yields were also significantly higher with the DNeasy Kit compared to one of the other kits in both health conditions. Conclusion: These results suggest that one paper point is sufficient to extract DNA for subsequent bacterial analyses and that the DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit appears to be the most efficient among the three tested kits.
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.