A simple and rapid technique of template preparation for PCR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many techniques have been developed for extracting DNA, but most are often complex, time-consuming, and/or expensive. In this study, we describe a simple, rapid and cost-effective technique for preparing DNA template for PCR. This technique involves 0.1 M potassium hydroxide treatment at 100°C for 10 min followed by centrifugation. The suspended centrifuged sediments were shown as excellent templates for PCR. Templates prepared using this technique worked for diverse microorganisms belonging to bacteria, fungi and oomycetes and their amplification efficiencies were comparable to/better than those prepared using common but relatively more complex, time-consuming, and/or expensive methods, including commercial DNA extraction kits. Furthermore, this technology is suitable for high-throughput batch processing and for amplifications of long DNA fragments. Flow cytometry and scanning electronic microscopy analyzes showed that this technique generated primarily damaged cells and cell-bound DNA, not free naked DNA. This technique provides a great convenience for simple PCR template preparation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".