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 *

220 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32034968)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Physical Pre-Treatment Improves Efficient DNA Extraction and qPCR Sensitivity from Clostridium Difficile Spores in Faecal Swine Specimens.
    Grześkowiak Ł; Zentek J; Vahjen W
    Curr Microbiol; 2016 Nov; 73(5):727-731. PubMed ID: 27534405
    [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. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Comparison of Meconium DNA Extraction Methods for Use in Microbiome Studies.
    Stinson LF; Keelan JA; Payne MS
    Front Microbiol; 2018; 9():270. PubMed ID: 29515550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Assessing impacts of DNA extraction methods on next generation sequencing of water and wastewater samples.
    Walden C; Carbonero F; Zhang W
    J Microbiol Methods; 2017 Oct; 141():10-16. PubMed ID: 28728909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluating Protocols for Porcine Faecal Microbiome Recollection, Storage and DNA Extraction: from the Farm to the Lab.
    Muiños-Bühl A; González-Recio O; Muñoz M; Óvilo C; García-Casco J; Fernández AI
    Curr Microbiol; 2018 Jun; 75(6):651-657. PubMed ID: 29318340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Microbial food safety: Potential of DNA extraction methods for use in diagnostic metagenomics.
    Josefsen MH; Andersen SC; Christensen J; Hoorfar J
    J Microbiol Methods; 2015 Jul; 114():30-4. PubMed ID: 25937085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison of five commercial DNA extraction kits for the recovery of Yersinia pestis DNA from bacterial suspensions and spiked environmental samples.
    Dauphin LA; Stephens KW; Eufinger SC; Bowen MD
    J Appl Microbiol; 2010 Jan; 108(1):163-72. PubMed ID: 19558466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Differences in the gut microbiome composition of Korean children and adult samples based on different DNA isolation kits.
    Baek C; Kim WJ; Moon J; Moon SY; Kim W; Hu HJ; Min J
    PLoS One; 2022; 17(3):e0264291. PubMed ID: 35271591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.