JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Other Versions of this Article:
JCM.00315-08v1
46/7/2195    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chan, K. H.
Right arrow Articles by Peiris, J. S. M.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chan, K. H.
Right arrow Articles by Peiris, J. S. M.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, July 2008, p. 2195-2199, Vol. 46, No. 7
0095-1137/08/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.00315-08
Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Comparison of the NucliSens easyMAG and Qiagen BioRobot 9604 Nucleic Acid Extraction Systems for Detection of RNA and DNA Respiratory Viruses in Nasopharyngeal Aspirate Samples{triangledown}

Kwok Hung Chan,1 Wing Cheong Yam,1 Chiu Mei Pang,1 Kit Man Chan,1 Siu Yan Lam,1 Kam Fai Lo,1 Leo L. M. Poon,1 and J. S. Malik Peiris1,2*

Department of Microbiology, The University of Hong Kong and Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, SAR, People's Republic of China,1 HKU-Pasteur Research Centre, Sassoon Rd., Pokfualm, Hong Kong, SAR, People's Republic of China2

Received 14 February 2008/ Returned for modification 9 April 2008/ Accepted 30 April 2008

The NucliSens easyMAG and BioRot 9604 automated nucleic acid extraction systems were evaluated and compared with the manual QIAamp (Qiagen) extraction method for their abilities to extract nucleic acid from nasopharyngeal aspirate samples for the detection of RNA and DNA respiratory viruses. The nucleic acids recovered by all three methods gave comparable sensitivities in PCR tests, and the three methods gave comparable viral loads. There was no evidence of residual PCR inhibitors and no evidence of PCR cross-contamination.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Microbiology, University Pathology Building, Queen Mary Hospital Compound, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, SAR, People's Republic of China. Phone: 852-28554126. Fax: 852-28551241. E-mail: malik{at}hkucc.hku.hk

{triangledown} Published ahead of print on 7 May 2008.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, July 2008, p. 2195-2199, Vol. 46, No. 7
0095-1137/08/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.00315-08
Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.





Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 2008 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.