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 *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36780844)

  • 1. Pulse Lavage System (PLS) versus forensic wet-vacuum collection of biological material.
    Chaudhry HS; Kavlick MF
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2023 May; 64():102845. PubMed ID: 36780844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of the M-Vac
    McLamb JM; Adams LD; Kavlick MF
    J Forensic Sci; 2020 Nov; 65(6):1828-1834. PubMed ID: 32687222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The use of the M-Vac® wet-vacuum system as a method for DNA recovery.
    Vickar T; Bache K; Daniel B; Frascione N
    Sci Justice; 2018 Jul; 58(4):282-286. PubMed ID: 29895461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effect of swabbing technique and duration on forensic DNA recovery.
    Abdullah A; Szkuta B; Meakin GE
    Sci Justice; 2023 May; 63(3):343-348. PubMed ID: 37169459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The DNA-Buster: The evaluation of an alternative DNA recovery approach.
    Währer J; Kehm S; Allen M; Brauer L; Eidam O; Seiberle I; Kron S; Scheurer E; Schulz I
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2023 May; 64():102830. PubMed ID: 36702080
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluation of the microbial wet-vacuum system (M-Vac®) for DNA sampling from rough, porous substrates, and its compatibility with fully automated platforms.
    Blackmore L; Hadley Cabral de Almada C; Poulsen F; Prasad E; Kotzander J; Paton K; Hitchcock C; Nadort A
    Forensic Sci Int; 2024 May; 361():112079. PubMed ID: 38850613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. DNA recovery from unfired and fired cartridge cases: A comparison of swabbing, tape lifting, vacuum filtration, and direct PCR.
    Prasad E; Hitchcock C; Raymond J; Cole A; Barash M; Gunn P; McNevin D; van Oorschot RAH
    Forensic Sci Int; 2020 Dec; 317():110507. PubMed ID: 32977300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Recovery of salivary DNA from the skin after showering.
    Williams S; Panacek E; Green W; Kanthaswamy S; Hopkins C; Calloway C
    Forensic Sci Med Pathol; 2015 Mar; 11(1):29-34. PubMed ID: 25534825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Double swab technique for collecting touched evidence.
    Pang BC; Cheung BK
    Leg Med (Tokyo); 2007 Jul; 9(4):181-4. PubMed ID: 17320457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Non-destructive DNA recovery from handwritten documents using a dry vacuum technique.
    McLaughlin P; Hopkins C; Springer E; Prinz M
    J Forensic Sci; 2021 Jul; 66(4):1443-1451. PubMed ID: 33656180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Recovery of Trace DNA on Clothing: A Comparison of Mini-tape Lifting and Three Other Forensic Evidence Collection Techniques.
    Hess S; Haas C
    J Forensic Sci; 2017 Jan; 62(1):187-191. PubMed ID: 27864934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. The double-swab technique versus single swabs for human DNA recovery from various surfaces.
    Hedman J; Jansson L; Akel Y; Wallmark N; Gutierrez Liljestrand R; Forsberg C; Ansell R
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2020 May; 46():102253. PubMed ID: 32007674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparative evaluation of vacuum-based surface sampling methods for collection of Bacillus spores.
    Calfee MW; Rose LJ; Morse S; Mattorano D; Clayton M; Touati A; Griffin-Gatchalian N; Slone C; McSweeney N
    J Microbiol Methods; 2013 Dec; 95(3):389-96. PubMed ID: 24184017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Electrostatic sampling of trace DNA from clothing.
    Zieger M; Defaux PM; Utz S
    Int J Legal Med; 2016 May; 130(3):661-7. PubMed ID: 26753871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Comparative study of spermatozoa detection using the genital swab versus bedside smear slide technique in sexual assault patients.
    Sathirareuangchai S; Phobtrakul R; Phetsangharn L; Srisopa K; Petchpunya S
    J Forensic Leg Med; 2015 Oct; 35():69-72. PubMed ID: 26344463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.