125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34065976)
1. Choice of Commercial DNA Extraction Method Does Not Affect 16S Sequencing Outcomes in Cloacal Swabs.
Van Syoc E; Carrillo Gaeta N; Ganda E
Animals (Basel); 2021 May; 11(5):. PubMed ID: 34065976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Direct PCR Offers a Fast and Reliable Alternative to Conventional DNA Isolation Methods for Gut Microbiomes.
Videvall E; Strandh M; Engelbrecht A; Cloete S; Cornwallis CK
mSystems; 2017; 2(6):. PubMed ID: 29181448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Cloacal swabs and alcohol bird specimens are good proxies for compositional analyses of gut microbial communities of Great tits (Parus major).
Bodawatta KH; Puzejova K; Sam K; Poulsen M; Jønsson KA
Anim Microbiome; 2020 Mar; 2(1):9. PubMed ID: 33499943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 16S rRNA gene-based assessment of common broiler chicken sampling methods: Evaluating intra-flock sample size, cecal pair similarity, and cloacal swab similarity to other alimentary tract locations.
Weinroth MD; Oakley B; Ramírez GA; Reyes A; Harris CE; Buhr RJ
Front Physiol; 2022; 13():996654. PubMed ID: 36338471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Choice of DNA extraction method affects detection of bacterial taxa from retail chicken breast.
Flint A; Laidlaw A; Li L; Raitt C; Rao M; Cooper A; Weedmark K; Carrillo C; Tamber S
BMC Microbiol; 2022 Sep; 22(1):230. PubMed ID: 36180850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A reasonable correlation between cloacal and cecal microbiomes in broiler chickens.
Andreani NA; Donaldson CJ; Goddard M
Poult Sci; 2020 Nov; 99(11):6062-6070. PubMed ID: 33142525
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Measuring the gut microbiome in birds: Comparison of faecal and cloacal sampling.
Videvall E; Strandh M; Engelbrecht A; Cloete S; Cornwallis CK
Mol Ecol Resour; 2018 May; 18(3):424-434. PubMed ID: 29205893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. An observational field study of the cloacal microbiota in adult laying hens with and without access to an outdoor range.
Schreuder J; Velkers FC; Bouwstra RJ; Beerens N; Stegeman JA; de Boer WF; van Hooft P; Elbers ARW; Bossers A; Jurburg SD
Anim Microbiome; 2020 Aug; 2(1):28. PubMed ID: 33499947
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Impact of DNA extraction, sample dilution, and reagent contamination on 16S rRNA gene sequencing of human feces.
Velásquez-Mejía EP; de la Cuesta-Zuluaga J; Escobar JS
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol; 2018 Jan; 102(1):403-411. PubMed ID: 29079861
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Elimination of "kitome" and "splashome" contamination results in lack of detection of a unique placental microbiome.
Olomu IN; Pena-Cortes LC; Long RA; Vyas A; Krichevskiy O; Luellwitz R; Singh P; Mulks MH
BMC Microbiol; 2020 Jun; 20(1):157. PubMed ID: 32527226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Recovered microbiome of an oviparous lizard differs across gut and reproductive tissues, cloacal swabs, and faeces.
Bunker ME; Martin MO; Weiss SL
Mol Ecol Resour; 2022 Jul; 22(5):1693-1705. PubMed ID: 34894079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of direct boiling method with commercial kits for extracting fecal microbiome DNA by Illumina sequencing of 16S rRNA tags.
Peng X; Yu KQ; Deng GH; Jiang YX; Wang Y; Zhang GX; Zhou HW
J Microbiol Methods; 2013 Dec; 95(3):455-62. PubMed ID: 23899773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Toward Standards in Clinical Microbiota Studies: Comparison of Three DNA Extraction Methods and Two Bioinformatic Pipelines.
Ducarmon QR; Hornung BVH; Geelen AR; Kuijper EJ; Zwittink RD
mSystems; 2020 Feb; 5(1):. PubMed ID: 32047058
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing of reference and clinical samples and investigation of the temperature stability of microbiome profiles.
Hang J; Desai V; Zavaljevski N; Yang Y; Lin X; Satya RV; Martinez LJ; Blaylock JM; Jarman RG; Thomas SJ; Kuschner RA
Microbiome; 2014; 2():31. PubMed ID: 25228989
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Reliability of a participant-friendly fecal collection method for microbiome analyses: a step towards large sample size investigation.
Szopinska JW; Gresse R; van der Marel S; Boekhorst J; Lukovac S; van Swam I; Franke B; Timmerman H; Belzer C; Arias Vasquez A
BMC Microbiol; 2018 Sep; 18(1):110. PubMed ID: 30189859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluation of Methods for the Extraction of Microbial DNA From Vaginal Swabs Used for Microbiome Studies.
Mattei V; Murugesan S; Al Hashmi M; Mathew R; James N; Singh P; Kumar M; Lakshmanan AP; Terranegra A; Al Khodor S; Tomei S
Front Cell Infect Microbiol; 2019; 9():197. PubMed ID: 31245304
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Evaluation of commercially available DNA extraction kits for the analysis of the broiler chicken cecal microbiota.
Pankoke H; Maus I; Loh G; Hüser A; Seifert J; Tilker A; Hark S; Sczyrba A; Pelzer S; Kleinbölting J
FEMS Microbiol Lett; 2021 May; 368(8):. PubMed ID: 30915459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Assessment of two DNA extraction kits for profiling poultry respiratory microbiota from multiple sample types.
Abundo MEC; Ngunjiri JM; Taylor KJM; Ji H; Ghorbani A; K C M; Weber BP; Johnson TJ; Lee CW
PLoS One; 2021; 16(1):e0241732. PubMed ID: 33406075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evaluation of Established Methods for DNA Extraction and Primer Pairs Targeting 16S rRNA Gene for Bacterial Microbiota Profiling of Olive Xylem Sap.
Haro C; Anguita-Maeso M; Metsis M; Navas-Cortés JA; Landa BB
Front Plant Sci; 2021; 12():640829. PubMed ID: 33777075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
