| Title |
Evaluation of two DNA extraction methods for the PCR-based detection of eukaryotic enteric pathogens in fecal samples
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13104-018-3300-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Estelle Menu, Charles Mary, Isabelle Toga, Didier Raoult, Stéphane Ranque, Fadi Bittar |
| Abstract |
Efficient and easy-to-use DNA extraction and purification methods are critical in implementing PCR-based diagnosis of pathogens. In order to optimize the routine clinical laboratory diagnosis of eukaryotic enteric pathogens, we compare, via quantitative PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, the efficiency of two DNA extraction kits: the semi-automated EZ1®(Qiagen) and the manual QIAamp®DNA Stool Mini Kit (Qiagen), on six protozoa: Blastocystis spp., Cryptosporidium parvum/hominis, Cyclospora cayetanensis, Dientamoeba fragilis, Giardia intestinalis and Cystoisospora belli and one microsporidia: Enterocytozoon bieneusi. Whereas EZ1®(Qiagen) and QIAamp®DNA Stool Mini Kit (Qiagen) yielded similar performances for the detection of Cryptosporidium spp. and D. fragilis, significant lower Ct values (p < 0.002) pointed out a better performance of EZ1®on the five remaining pathogens. DNA extraction using the semi-automated EZ1®procedure was faster and as efficient as the manual procedure in the seven eukaryotic enteric pathogens tested. This procedure is suitable for DNA extraction from stools in both clinical laboratory diagnosis and epidemiological study settings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 12% |
| Researcher | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 20 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Immunology and Microbiology | 9 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 8% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 20% |
| Unknown | 22 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,594,219
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,036
of 4,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,372
of 330,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#56
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,283 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.