ABSTRACT: Evaluation of four DNA extraction kits for implementation of Nanopore sequencing in routine surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in low-resource settings
Project description:Evaluation of four DNA extraction kits for implementation of Nanopore sequencing in routine surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in low-resource settings
Project description:We compared 3 small RNA library prep kits (CleanTag, NEXTflex, QIAseq) and two RNA extraction methods (miRNeasy and MagnaZol) on plasma. We report that library preparation has a significant effect upon the miRNA profile detected, with QIAseq libraries exhibiting the least sequencing bias of the three library kits. RNA extraction methods also contribute, to a lesser extent, to the miRNA profile detected, with MagnaZol RNA extraction increasing the percentage of reads mapping to miRNAs and the number of individual miRNAs detected.
Project description:Serum miRNAs are considered useful as non-invasive biomarkers for various diseases, but the optimal method for extracting RNA from serum is currently unknown. In this study, several RNA extraction kits were used to determine which kit is the optimal method. RNA was extracted from the serum of 8-week-old C57BL/6NJcl male mice according to the protocol of each RNA extraction kit. The yield of extracted RNA samples was calculated and electrophoretic patterns were evaluated by Agilent bioanalyzer. Expression patterns of the extracted RNA samples were confirmed by Agilent mouse miRNA microarray. The results showed significant differences in RNA yields in the miRNeasy serum/plasma advanced kit, and mirVana™ PARIS™ RNA and Native Protein Purification Kit compared to almost all other samples. Furthermore, two peaks were identified in the miRNeasy serum/plasma advanced kit using small RNA kit of Agilent bioanalyzer, one at 20-40 nucleotides (nt) and the other around 40-100 nt whereas the other reagents had a single peak. In addition, a high correlation was observed between the two RNA extraction kits in microarray. These results suggest that the above two kits are suitable for miRNA extraction from mouse serum.
Project description:Microbiome nucleic acid extraction kit model is a Named Entity Recognition (NER) model that identifies and annotates the name of the kits used in extracting microbiome nucleic acids in texts. This is the final model version used to annotate metagenomics publications in Europe PMC and enrich metagenomics studies in MGnify with kits metadata from literature. For more information, please refer to the following blogs: http://blog.europepmc.org/2020/11/europe-pmc-publications-metagenomics-annotations.html https://www.ebi.ac.uk/about/news/service-news/enriched-metadata-fields-mgnify-based-text-mining-associated-publications
Project description:Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples represent the gold standard for archiving pathology samples, and thus FFPE samples are a major resource of samples in clinical research. However, chromatin-based epigenetic assays in the clinical settings are limited to fresh or frozen samples, and are hampered by low chromatin yield in FFPE samples due to the lack of a reliable and efficient chromatin preparation method. Here, we introduce a new chromatin extraction method from FFPE tissues (Chrom-EX PE) for chromatin-based epigenetic assays.This study provided a new method that achieves efficient extraction of high-quality chromatin suitable for chromatin-based epigenetic assays with less damage on chromatin.
Project description:Entamoeba histolytica membrane proteins are important players in the parasite’s pathogenicity. However, most of the proteins have not been identified. This study reports the membrane proteins extracted using three extractions methods: two commercial kits (ProteoExtract® from Calbiochem and ProteoPrep® from Sigma), and a conventional laboratory method. The resulting membrane fractions (MF) and cytosolic fractions (CF)were analysed using LC-ESI-MS/MS. The proteins identified in at least two out of three biological replicates revealed a total of 490, 492, and 587 MF proteins extracted using the ProteoExtract® kit, ProteoPrep® kit and conventional method, respectively. Meanwhile, 487, 611 and 343 proteins were identified in the CF extracted using the ProteoExtract® kit, ProteoPrep® kit and conventional method, respectively. Analysis of the identified MF and CF proteins extracted by the respective extraction kits suggests that the ProteoPrep® extraction kit was the most selective in separating MF and CF among the three extraction methods.
