ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2026
A quantitative method to assess DNA extraction efficiency.
Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 2026. 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
Obtaining an accepted minimum amount of extracted and purified DNA is critical for generating complete forensic short tandem repeat (STR) profiles. Certain sample types encountered in forensic laboratories may pose challenges in obtaining the desired target amount of extracted DNA, which can be compounded when an extraction yields low recovery, resulting in a loss of the genetic material necessary for downstream forensic DNA typing. While multiple studies have evaluated the impact of extraction chemistries on yield, they often focus on "end-to-end" profiling success rather than quantifying the discrete loss of DNA during the extraction step. This study presents a quantitative framework using digital PCR (dPCR) to benchmark extraction efficiency by comparing known amounts of DNA pre- and post-extraction. Extraction efficiency was evaluated using silica spin column and magnetic resin-based protocols across five input amounts, with three sample types: whole blood, human cells, and pre-extracted DNA. Results demonstrate significant differences in efficiency between protocols for cellular samples, with both methods exhibiting increased variability at the 1 ng threshold. This data also revealed that previously extracted DNA (SRM 2372a) fails to accurately represent cellular extraction dynamics, serving instead as a control for purification-related loss (e.g., column retention) rather than lysis efficiency.
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.