215 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32429170)
1. The Influence of DNA Extraction and Lipid Removal on Human Milk Bacterial Profiles.
Ojo-Okunola A; Claassen-Weitz S; Mwaikono KS; Gardner-Lubbe S; Zar HJ; Nicol MP; du Toit E
Methods Protoc; 2020 May; 3(2):. PubMed ID: 32429170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. DNA extraction method influences human milk bacterial profiles.
Cheema AS; Stinson LF; Lai CT; Geddes DT; Payne MS
J Appl Microbiol; 2021 Jan; 130(1):142-156. PubMed ID: 32654260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Optimizing 16S rRNA gene profile analysis from low biomass nasopharyngeal and induced sputum specimens.
Claassen-Weitz S; Gardner-Lubbe S; Mwaikono KS; du Toit E; Zar HJ; Nicol MP
BMC Microbiol; 2020 May; 20(1):113. PubMed ID: 32397992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Combined bacterial and fungal targeted amplicon sequencing of respiratory samples: Does the DNA extraction method matter?
Angebault C; Payen M; Woerther PL; Rodriguez C; Botterel F
PLoS One; 2020; 15(4):e0232215. PubMed ID: 32343737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Comparison of four commercial DNA extraction kits for the recovery of Bacillus spp. spore DNA from spiked powder samples.
Mölsä M; Kalin-Mänttäri L; Tonteri E; Hemmilä H; Nikkari S
J Microbiol Methods; 2016 Sep; 128():69-73. PubMed ID: 27435532
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. An evaluation of the performance of five extraction methods: Chelex® 100, QIAamp® DNA Blood Mini Kit, QIAamp® DNA Investigator Kit, QIAsymphony® DNA Investigator® Kit and DNA IQ™.
Ip SC; Lin SW; Lai KM
Sci Justice; 2015 May; 55(3):200-8. PubMed ID: 25934373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. The Impact of DNA Extraction Methods on Stool Bacterial and Fungal Microbiota Community Recovery.
Fiedorová K; Radvanský M; Němcová E; Grombiříková H; Bosák J; Černochová M; Lexa M; Šmajs D; Freiberger T
Front Microbiol; 2019; 10():821. PubMed ID: 31057522
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Optimization of DNA extraction and sampling methods for successful forensic microbiome analyses of the skin and saliva.
Yu KM; Lee AM; Cho HS; Lee JW; Lim SK
Int J Legal Med; 2023 Jan; 137(1):63-77. PubMed ID: 36416962
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of the utility of five commercial kits for extraction of DNA from Aspergillus fumigatus spores.
Nawrot U; Wlodarczyk K; Wrobel M; Wasik A; Dobosz T
Acta Biochim Pol; 2010; 57(4):567-71. PubMed ID: 20978634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Commercial DNA extraction kits impact observed microbial community composition in permafrost samples.
Vishnivetskaya TA; Layton AC; Lau MC; Chauhan A; Cheng KR; Meyers AJ; Murphy JR; Rogers AW; Saarunya GS; Williams DE; Pfiffner SM; Biggerstaff JP; Stackhouse BT; Phelps TJ; Whyte L; Sayler GS; Onstott TC
FEMS Microbiol Ecol; 2014 Jan; 87(1):217-30. PubMed ID: 24102625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Biases during DNA extraction affect characterization of the microbiota associated with larvae of the Pacific white shrimp,
Xue M; Wu L; He Y; Liang H; Wen C
PeerJ; 2018; 6():e5257. PubMed ID: 30038871
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Comparison of commercial DNA extraction kits for whole metagenome sequencing of human oral, vaginal, and rectal microbiome samples.
Wright ML; Podnar J; Longoria KD; Nguyen TC; Lim S; Garcia S; Wylie D
bioRxiv; 2023 May; ():. PubMed ID: 36778319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Biases on community structure during DNA extraction of shrimp intestinal microbiota revealed by high-throughput sequencing].
Wen C; He Y; Xue M; Liang H; Dong J
Wei Sheng Wu Xue Bao; 2016 Jan; 56(1):130-42. PubMed ID: 27305787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison Study of Four Extraction Methods Combined with PCR and LAMP for Feline
Dąbrowska J; Karamon J; Kochanowski M; Sroka J; Zdybel J; Cencek T
Pathogens; 2022 May; 11(5):. PubMed ID: 35631125
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
