ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis1998
Chlamydia DNA extraction for use in PCR: stability and sensitivity in detection.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Viral and bacterial DNA in carotid atherosclerotic lesions.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2003Article
- PCR in diagnosis of infection: detection of bacteria in cerebrospinal fluids.Clinical and diagnostic laboratory immunology · 2002Review
- Is Chlamydia pneumoniae present in brain lesions of patients with multiple sclerosis?Journal of clinical microbiology · 2000Article
- Comparison of six commercial DNA extraction kits for recovery of cytomegalovirus DNA from spiked human specimens.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2000Article
- Molecular diagnosis of Chlamydia pneumoniae infection.Journal of clinical microbiology · 1999Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated multiple procedures for extracting chlamydial DNA from specimens for detection in PCR tests. Commercial kits and an in-house method were tested for their sensitivity and utility. Quantifiable chlamydial elementary bodies (EB) were used for spiking buffy coats from EDTA-collected blood. EBs of Chlamydia pneumoniae at 2,500 and 25 EB/ml were used as specimens for DNA extraction using seven different procedures. These included either columns (3 procedures), centrifugation (1), glass (1), or patented extraction matrices (2), coupled with either alcohol precipitation (6) or heat-detergent treatment (1). Five procedures required 10-40 minutes manipulation; two required 2-5 hours. PCR results for DNA extracts using chlamydial 16S genus primers were generally more intensely positive with denser bands on electrophoresis gels for the higher concentrations of EB (up to 4+ for stained product on gels) than was PCR with lower EB concentrations (up to 2+). Further, the incidence of procedures with positive results was: 5 of 7 for chlamydial genus primers with 5 EB vs. 6 of 7 with 500 EB. Maximal sensitivity for one of the extractions was in the range of 2.5-5.0 EB/ml of test specimen with 4 of 5 replicates being positive with EB controls or extracts. Extracts were stable up to 2+ weeks at 4 degrees C and were effective in multiplexing with fluorescent-tagged primers. Taking into consideration the time factor and sensitivities, the two procedures with extraction matrices are favored for routine laboratory use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
9484669PMC6807996What 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.