Linked Life Data

18556770

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/18556770

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
4
pubmed:dateCreated
2008-6-30
pubmed:abstractText
Automated nucleic acid extractors can improve workflow and decrease variability in the clinical laboratory. We evaluated Qiagen EZ1 (Valencia, CA) and bioMérieux (Durham, NC) easyMAG extractors compared with Qiagen manual extraction using targets and matrices commonly available in the clinical laboratory. Pooled samples were spiked with various organisms, serially diluted, and extracted in duplicate. The organisms/matrices were Bordetella pertussis/bronchoalveolar lavage, herpes simplex virus II/cerebrospinal fluid, coxsackievirus A9/cerebrospinal fluid, BK virus/plasma, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae/endotracheal tube samples. Extracts were amplified in duplicate using real-time PCR assays, and amplification of the target at a cycle threshold of 35 using the manual method was used for comparison. Amplification efficiency of nucleic acids extracted by automated methods was similar to that by the manual method except for a loss of efficiency for M. pneumoniae in endotracheal tube samples. The EZ1 viral kit 2.0 gave better results for coxsackievirus A9 than the EZ1 viral kit version 1.0. At the lowest limit of detection (past a cycle threshold of 35), the easyMAG was more likely to produce amplifiable nucleic acid than were either the EZ1 or manual extraction. Operational complexity, defined as the number of manipulations required to obtain an extracted sample, was the lowest for the easyMAG. The easyMAG was the most expensive of the methods, followed by the EZ1 kit and manual extraction.
pubmed:commentsCorrections
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/18556770-11322169, http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/18556770-12904351, http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/18556770-15583339, http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/18556770-15750060, http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/18556770-16101686, http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/18556770-16145116, http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/18556770-16145151, http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/18556770-16272483, http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/18556770-16891478, http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/18556770-17166966, http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/18556770-17621359
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:chemical
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Jul
pubmed:issn
1525-1578
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
10
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
311-6
pubmed:dateRevised
2009-11-18
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2008
pubmed:articleTitle
Comparison of automated nucleic acid extraction methods with manual extraction.
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Pathology, Children's Medical Center, 1935 Motor Street, Dallas, TX 75235, USA.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comparative Study