2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2008.02.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparative evaluation of the sensitivity of two automated and two manual nucleic acid extraction methods for the detection of norovirus by RT-PCR

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
17
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
1
17
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Faecal specimens were prepared as a 20% (vol/vol) suspension in Hanks' complete balanced salt solution, and clarified by centrifugation [18]. RNA extraction was then carried out using the Corbett (now Qiagen GmbH, Hilden, Germany) automated nucleic acid extraction procedure [19]. …”
Section: Figmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Faecal specimens were prepared as a 20% (vol/vol) suspension in Hanks' complete balanced salt solution, and clarified by centrifugation [18]. RNA extraction was then carried out using the Corbett (now Qiagen GmbH, Hilden, Germany) automated nucleic acid extraction procedure [19]. …”
Section: Figmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…RNA extraction, prior to NoV ORF 1 reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR), was then carried out using either the manual QIAamp viral RNA kit (23,24) or the Corbett automated nucleic acid extraction procedure (23).…”
Section: Outbreakmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In general, these investigations reveal a slight advantage for manually extracted DNA regarding technical issues such as yield and purity of DNA even when identical chemistries were used. 2,12,13 The results 11 ( Fig. 4) indicated that automated extraction method was comparable in sensitivity with the manual Chelex method.…”
Section: Dna Extraction and Purificationmentioning
confidence: 88%