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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25016249)

  • 1. Evaluation of a novel material, Diomics X-Swab™, for collection of DNA.
    Marshall PL; Stoljarova M; Larue BL; King JL; Budowle B
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2014 Sep; 12():192-8. PubMed ID: 25016249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Touch DNA collection - Performance of four different swabs.
    Comte J; Baechler S; Gervaix J; Lock E; Milon MP; Delémont O; Castella V
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2019 Nov; 43():102113. PubMed ID: 31525724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Collaborative swab performance comparison and the impact of sampling solution volumes on DNA recovery.
    Seiberle I; Währer J; Kron S; Flury K; Girardin M; Schocker A; Schulz I
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2022 Jul; 59():102716. PubMed ID: 35512614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Touch DNA recovery from vehicle surfaces using different swabs.
    Giovanelli A; Grazinoli Garrido R; Rocha A; Hessab T
    J Forensic Sci; 2022 Mar; 67(2):707-711. PubMed ID: 34725823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A comparison of DNA collection and retrieval from two swab types (cotton and nylon flocked swab) when processed using three QIAGEN extraction methods.
    Brownlow RJ; Dagnall KE; Ames CE
    J Forensic Sci; 2012 May; 57(3):713-7. PubMed ID: 22211626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluation of methods to improve the extraction and recovery of DNA from cotton swabs for forensic analysis.
    Adamowicz MS; Stasulli DM; Sobestanovich EM; Bille TW
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(12):e116351. PubMed ID: 25549111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Sampling touch DNA from human skin following skin-to-skin contact in mock assault scenarios-A comparison of nine collection methods.
    Kallupurackal V; Kummer S; Voegeli P; Kratzer A; Dørum G; Haas C; Hess S
    J Forensic Sci; 2021 Sep; 66(5):1889-1900. PubMed ID: 33928655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The Extraction and Recovery Efficiency of Pure DNA for Different Types of Swabs.
    Bruijns BB; Tiggelaar RM; Gardeniers H
    J Forensic Sci; 2018 Sep; 63(5):1492-1499. PubMed ID: 29890011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Nondestructive Biological Evidence Collection with Alternative Swabs and Adhesive Lifters.
    Plaza DT; Mealy JL; Lane JN; Parsons MN; Bathrick AS; Slack DP
    J Forensic Sci; 2016 Mar; 61(2):485-488. PubMed ID: 27404622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The influence of swabbing solutions on DNA recovery from touch samples.
    Thomasma SM; Foran DR
    J Forensic Sci; 2013 Mar; 58(2):465-9. PubMed ID: 23278347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. PE-Swab Direct STR Amplification of Forensic Touch DNA Samples.
    Liu JY
    J Forensic Sci; 2015 May; 60(3):693-701. PubMed ID: 25684449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Post-coital vaginal sampling with nylon flocked swabs improves DNA typing.
    Benschop CC; Wiebosch DC; Kloosterman AD; Sijen T
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2010 Feb; 4(2):115-21. PubMed ID: 20129470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Swabs as DNA collection devices for sampling different biological materials from different substrates.
    Verdon TJ; Mitchell RJ; van Oorschot RA
    J Forensic Sci; 2014 Jul; 59(4):1080-9. PubMed ID: 24502761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of performance of genetics 4N6 FLOQSwabs™ with or without surfactant to rayon swabs.
    Frippiat C; Noel F
    J Forensic Leg Med; 2016 Aug; 42():96-9. PubMed ID: 27314974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Screening for cytomegalovirus shedding in vagina and saliva: Significant differences between biological fluids, swab types and storage durations in DNA recovery.
    Tan NK; Pope CF; Carrington D
    J Clin Virol; 2022 Jan; 146():105055. PubMed ID: 34953320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Advantage of ForensiX Swabs in Retrieving and Preserving Biological Fluids.
    Mawlood SK; Alrowaithi M; Watson N
    J Forensic Sci; 2015 May; 60(3):686-9. PubMed ID: 25684353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Cell counting to monitor swab efficiency.
    Nolan M; Linacre A
    J Forensic Sci; 2024 May; 69(3):1002-1010. PubMed ID: 38380584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Visualising latent DNA on swabs.
    Kanokwongnuwut P; Kirkbride P; Linacre A
    Forensic Sci Int; 2018 Oct; 291():115-123. PubMed ID: 30195152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison of DNA typing success in compromised blood and touch samples based on sampling swab composition.
    Smith C; Cox JO; Rhodes C; Lewis C; Koroma M; Hudson BC; Dawson Cruz T; Seashols-Williams SJ
    J Forensic Sci; 2021 Jul; 66(4):1427-1434. PubMed ID: 33624316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Direct PCR amplification of DNA from human bloodstains, saliva, and touch samples collected with microFLOQ
    Ambers A; Wiley R; Novroski N; Budowle B
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2018 Jan; 32():80-87. PubMed ID: 29126000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.