188 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38747618)
1. High-throughput DNA extraction strategy for fecal microbiome studies.
Isokääntä H; Tomnikov N; Vanhatalo S; Munukka E; Huovinen P; Hakanen AJ; Kallonen T
Microbiol Spectr; 2024 Jun; 12(6):e0293223. PubMed ID: 38747618
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Improved DNA Extraction and Amplification Strategy for 16S rRNA Gene Amplicon-Based Microbiome Studies.
Hong BY; Driscoll M; Gratalo D; Jarvie T; Weinstock GM
Int J Mol Sci; 2024 Mar; 25(5):. PubMed ID: 38474213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Method Validation for Extraction of DNA from Human Stool Samples for Downstream Microbiome Analysis.
Neuberger-Castillo L; Hamot G; Marchese M; Sanchez I; Ammerlaan W; Betsou F
Biopreserv Biobank; 2020 Apr; 18(2):102-116. PubMed ID: 31999474
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Quantifying technical confounders in microbiome studies.
Bartolomaeus TUP; Birkner T; Bartolomaeus H; Löber U; Avery EG; Mähler A; Weber D; Kochlik B; Balogh A; Wilck N; Boschmann M; Müller DN; Markó L; Forslund SK
Cardiovasc Res; 2021 Feb; 117(3):863-875. PubMed ID: 32374853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Impact of Bead-Beating Intensity on the Genus- and Species-Level Characterization of the Gut Microbiome Using Amplicon and Complete 16S rRNA Gene Sequencing.
Zhang B; Brock M; Arana C; Dende C; van Oers NS; Hooper LV; Raj P
Front Cell Infect Microbiol; 2021; 11():678522. PubMed ID: 34660333
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Storage and handling of human faecal samples affect the gut microbiome composition: A feasibility study.
Ezzy AC; Hagstrom AD; George C; Hamlin AS; Pereg L; Murphy AJ; Winter G
J Microbiol Methods; 2019 Sep; 164():105668. PubMed ID: 31302202
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Reliability of stool microbiome methods for DNA yields and sequencing among infants and young children.
Antosca K; Hoen AG; Palys T; Hilliard M; Morrison HG; Coker M; Madan J; Karagas MR
Microbiologyopen; 2020 May; 9(5):e1018. PubMed ID: 32166902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of rectal swab, glove tip, and participant-collected stool techniques for gut microbiome sampling.
Short MI; Hudson R; Besasie BD; Reveles KR; Shah DP; Nicholson S; Johnson-Pais TL; Weldon K; Lai Z; Leach RJ; Fongang B; Liss MA
BMC Microbiol; 2021 Jan; 21(1):26. PubMed ID: 33446094
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Choice of DNA extraction method affects stool microbiome recovery and subsequent phenotypic association analyses.
Fernández-Pato A; Sinha T; Gacesa R; Andreu-Sánchez S; Gois MFB; Gelderloos-Arends J; Jansen DBH; Kruk M; Jaeger M; Joosten LAB; Netea MG; Weersma RK; Wijmenga C; Harmsen HJM; Fu J; Zhernakova A; Kurilshikov A
Sci Rep; 2024 Feb; 14(1):3911. PubMed ID: 38366085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Optimisation of 16S rRNA gut microbiota profiling of extremely low birth weight infants.
Alcon-Giner C; Caim S; Mitra S; Ketskemety J; Wegmann U; Wain J; Belteki G; Clarke P; Hall LJ
BMC Genomics; 2017 Nov; 18(1):841. PubMed ID: 29096601
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Gut Microbiota Analysis Results Are Highly Dependent on the 16S rRNA Gene Target Region, Whereas the Impact of DNA Extraction Is Minor.
Rintala A; Pietilä S; Munukka E; Eerola E; Pursiheimo JP; Laiho A; Pekkala S; Huovinen P
J Biomol Tech; 2017 Apr; 28(1):19-30. PubMed ID: 28260999
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A multi-amplicon 16S rRNA sequencing and analysis method for improved taxonomic profiling of bacterial communities.
Schriefer AE; Cliften PF; Hibberd MC; Sawyer C; Brown-Kennerly V; Burcea L; Klotz E; Crosby SD; Gordon JI; Head RD
J Microbiol Methods; 2018 Nov; 154():6-13. PubMed ID: 30273610
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Systematic Analysis of Impact of Sampling Regions and Storage Methods on Fecal Gut Microbiome and Metabolome Profiles.
Liang Y; Dong T; Chen M; He L; Wang T; Liu X; Chang H; Mao JH; Hang B; Snijders AM; Xia Y
mSphere; 2020 Jan; 5(1):. PubMed ID: 31915218
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. An alternative storage method for characterization of the intestinal microbiota through next generation sequencing.
Ribeiro RM; Souza-Basqueira M; Oliveira LC; Salles FC; Pereira NB; Sabino EC
Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo; 2018 Nov; 60():e77. PubMed ID: 30517247
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Optimisation of methods for bacterial skin microbiome investigation: primer selection and comparison of the 454 versus MiSeq platform.
Castelino M; Eyre S; Moat J; Fox G; Martin P; Ho P; Upton M; Barton A
BMC Microbiol; 2017 Jan; 17(1):23. PubMed ID: 28109256
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
