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 *

109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36087371)

  • 1. Comparison of swab types & elution buffers for collection and analysis of intact cells to aid in deconvolution of complex DNA mixtures.
    Canfield JR; Jollie M; Worst T; Oechsle C
    Forensic Sci Int; 2022 Nov; 340():111448. PubMed ID: 36087371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of swab types for collection and analysis of microorganisms.
    Wise NM; Wagner SJ; Worst TJ; Sprague JE; Oechsle CM
    Microbiologyopen; 2021 Nov; 10(6):e1244. PubMed ID: 34964289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. The effect of NucleoSpin® Forensic Filters on DNA recovery from trace DNA swabs.
    Heathfield LJ; Hitewa AN; Gibbon A; Mole CG
    Sci Justice; 2022 May; 62(3):284-287. PubMed ID: 35598922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Enhanced forensic DNA recovery with appropriate swabs and optimized swabbing technique.
    Hedman J; Akel Y; Jansson L; Hedell R; Wallmark N; Forsberg C; Ansell R
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2021 Jul; 53():102491. PubMed ID: 33774569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The Perfect Match: Assessment of Sample Collection Efficiency for Immunological and Molecular Findings in Different Types of Fabrics.
    C Zapico S; Dytso A; Rubio L; Roca G
    Int J Mol Sci; 2022 Sep; 23(18):. PubMed ID: 36142599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. The application of alkaline lysis and pressure cycling technology in the differential extraction of DNA from sperm and epithelial cells recovered from cotton swabs.
    Nori DV; McCord BR
    Anal Bioanal Chem; 2015 Sep; 407(23):6975-84. PubMed ID: 26055880
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The use of phosphate buffered saline for the recovery of cells and spermatozoa from swabs.
    Martin NC; Pirie AA; Ford LV; Callaghan CL; McTurk K; Lucy D; Scrimger DG
    Sci Justice; 2006; 46(3):179-84. PubMed ID: 17388245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Contribution to the Development of Guidelines in the Analysis of Biological Evidence in Sexual Assault Investigations.
    Ferreira-Silva B; Porto MJ; Magalhães T; Cainé L
    J Forensic Sci; 2019 Mar; 64(2):534-538. PubMed ID: 30025166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.