These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
353 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23684993)
1. A comparison of the efficiency of five different commercial DNA extraction kits for extraction of DNA from faecal samples. Claassen S; du Toit E; Kaba M; Moodley C; Zar HJ; Nicol MP J Microbiol Methods; 2013 Aug; 94(2):103-110. PubMed ID: 23684993 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Microbial diversity in fecal samples depends on DNA extraction method: easyMag DNA extraction compared to QIAamp DNA stool mini kit extraction. Mirsepasi H; Persson S; Struve C; Andersen LO; Petersen AM; Krogfelt KA BMC Res Notes; 2014 Jan; 7():50. PubMed ID: 24447346 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of commercial DNA extraction kits for isolation and purification of bacterial and eukaryotic DNA from PAH-contaminated soils. Mahmoudi N; Slater GF; Fulthorpe RR Can J Microbiol; 2011 Aug; 57(8):623-8. PubMed ID: 21815819 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of DNA extraction kits for PCR-DGGE analysis of human intestinal microbial communities from fecal specimens. Ariefdjohan MW; Savaiano DA; Nakatsu CH Nutr J; 2010 May; 9():23. PubMed ID: 20492702 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A comparison of five methods for extraction of bacterial DNA from human faecal samples. McOrist AL; Jackson M; Bird AR J Microbiol Methods; 2002 Jul; 50(2):131-9. PubMed ID: 11997164 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of five assays for DNA extraction from bacterial cells in human faecal samples. Gryp T; Glorieux G; Joossens M; Vaneechoutte M J Appl Microbiol; 2020 Aug; 129(2):378-388. PubMed ID: 32034968 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of seven methods for extraction of bacterial DNA from fecal and cecal samples of mice. Ferrand J; Patron K; Legrand-Frossi C; Frippiat JP; Merlin C; Alauzet C; Lozniewski A J Microbiol Methods; 2014 Oct; 105():180-5. PubMed ID: 25093756 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of different commercial DNA extraction kits and PCR protocols for the detection of Echinococcus multilocularis eggs in faecal samples from foxes. Maksimov P; Schares G; Press S; Fröhlich A; Basso W; Herzig M; Conraths FJ Vet Parasitol; 2017 Apr; 237():83-93. PubMed ID: 28268038 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Are all faecal bacteria detected with equal efficiency? A study using next-generation sequencing and quantitative culture of infants' faecal samples. Sjöberg F; Nookaew I; Yazdanshenas S; Gio-Batta M; Adlerberth I; Wold AE J Microbiol Methods; 2020 Oct; 177():106018. PubMed ID: 32795633 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Evaluation of QIAamp DNA Stool Mini Kit for ecological studies of gut microbiota. Li M; Gong J; Cottrill M; Yu H; de Lange C; Burton J; Topp E J Microbiol Methods; 2003 Jul; 54(1):13-20. PubMed ID: 12732417 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of DNA extraction protocols for microbial communities from soil treated with biochar. Leite DC; Balieiro FC; Pires CA; Madari BE; Rosado AS; Coutinho HL; Peixoto RS Braz J Microbiol; 2014; 45(1):175-83. PubMed ID: 24948928 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of five commercial nucleic acid extraction kits for their ability to inactivate Bacillus anthracis spores and comparison of DNA yields from spores and spiked environmental samples. Dauphin LA; Moser BD; Bowen MD J Microbiol Methods; 2009 Jan; 76(1):30-7. PubMed ID: 18824041 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of commercial kits for the extraction of DNA from paddy soils. Knauth S; Schmidt H; Tippkötter R Lett Appl Microbiol; 2013 Mar; 56(3):222-8. PubMed ID: 23252687 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. An effective method for isolation of DNA from pig faeces and comparison of five different methods. Tang JN; Zeng ZG; Wang HN; Yang T; Zhang PJ; Li YL; Zhang AY; Fan WQ; Zhang Y; Yang X; Zhao SJ; Tian GB; Zou LK J Microbiol Methods; 2008 Dec; 75(3):432-6. PubMed ID: 18700153 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparative analysis of commercially available kits for optimal DNA extraction from bovine fecal samples. Seethalakshmi PS; Kumaresan TN; Vishnu Prasad Nair RU; Prathiviraj R; Seghal Kiran G; Selvin J Arch Microbiol; 2024 Jun; 206(7):314. PubMed ID: 38900289 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Magnetic bead-based nucleic acid purification kit: Clinical application and performance evaluation in stool specimens. Yoon JG; Kang JS; Hwang SY; Song J; Jeong SH J Microbiol Methods; 2016 May; 124():62-8. PubMed ID: 27030641 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluation of fecal DNA extraction protocols for human gut microbiome studies. Lim MY; Park YS; Kim JH; Nam YD BMC Microbiol; 2020 Jul; 20(1):212. PubMed ID: 32680572 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of DNA extraction kits and modification of DNA elution procedure for the quantitation of subdominant bacteria from piggery effluents with real-time PCR. Desneux J; Pourcher AM Microbiologyopen; 2014 Aug; 3(4):437-45. PubMed ID: 24838631 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of DNA extraction methods for human gut microbial community profiling. Lim MY; Song EJ; Kim SH; Lee J; Nam YD Syst Appl Microbiol; 2018 Mar; 41(2):151-157. PubMed ID: 29305057 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]