ArticleVirology journal2025
Evaluation of the influence of RNA extraction methods on the detection of citrus viruses and viroids.
Article in Virology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundCertification and disease management practices are reliant on accurate pathogen detection assays. Effective nucleic acid extraction is the cornerstone of various molecular detection techniques, and many virus and viroid RNA extraction protocols have been developed, each with accompanying advantages and limitations. The extraction method influences the type, quantity and quality of RNA and, therefore, the overall sensitivity of the assay.
methodsPlants from two citrus types were infected with multiple viruses and viroids. Ten plants from each were selected. RNA was extracted from bark and leaf samples using four protocols: CL (CTAB/LiCl), CE (CTAB/ethanol), TL (acid phenol buffer/LiCl and isopropanol) and SI (SDS/isopropanol). Extracts were subjected to RT-qPCR for pathogen quantitation. Results were confirmed with Illumina high-throughput sequencing (HTS). Leaf material from a citrus type was resampled, RNA extracted with CE, SI and CP (CTAB/isopropanol) and pathogen quantities determined with RT-qPCR. An additional five plants were also selected and subjected to RNA extraction with CP, SI and a modified CE. RT-qPCRs and HTS were applied to all of these extracts. Protocols were evaluated based on pathogen quantities and various bioinformatic approaches. Reference genes and CTV genotypes were also assessed with HTS.
resultsThe extraction protocol had a remarkable influence on RT-qPCR and HTS pathogen detection ability. The CL method performed best for CTV while SI proved more sensitive for the other viruses. Viroid detection had increased variability with CE extracts containing more viroid RNA although CL extracts showed comparable amounts of CDVd. The CE protocol indicated potential debilitating effects on virus detection. The additional sampled plants subjected to the modified CE protocol, showed increased virus and decreased viroid amounts. The extraction protocol did, however, not significantly influence CTV genotype composition and the investigation of reference genes provided insight into appropriate genes to be used as internal controls for cross sample comparisons.
conclusionsDespite the differential pathogen extraction amongst protocols, all target pathogens could be detected with appropriate RT-qPCR replicates and combined bioinformatic approaches. This study emphasises that although multiple protocols can be effective, further selection and optimisation could enhance the performance. Present research serves as a foundation for the refinement of diagnostic pipelines in citrus pathology.
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.