Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Editorial Board Member: Gillery, Philippe / Kazmierczak, Steven / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Schlattmann, Peter / Whitfield, John B.

13 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2013: 2.955
Rank 5 out of 29 in category Medical Laboratory Technology in the 2013 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Science Edition

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 0.860
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 1.046



Evaluation of Maxwell® 16 for automated DNA extraction from whole blood and formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue

1 / Midori Mitui1 / Nora Kristine Leos1 / Beverly Barton Rogers2, 3 / Jason Y. Park1, 4

1Department of Pathology, Children’s Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA

2Department of Pathology, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA, USA

3Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA

4Department of Pathology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA

Corresponding author: Shama Khan Khokhar, Department of Pathology, Children’s Medical Center, 1935 Medical District Dr, Dallas, TX 75235, USA Phone: +1-214-456-7253

Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Volume 50, Issue 2, Pages 267–272, ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: 10.1515/cclm.2011.763, October 2011

Publication History

Published Online:


Background: The aim of the study was to assess the performance of Promega, Maxwell® 16 for the extraction of genomic DNA from whole blood and FFPE tissue.

Methods: DNA was extracted from 10 whole blood and 10 FFPE specimens using six different commercial kits.

Results: For whole blood, the mean DNA concentration obtained by Maxwell® 16 was significantly greater than either easyMAG® (p<0.0001) or QIAamp® Blood DNA kit (p<0.001). For FFPE, the mean DNA concentration obtained by the AllPrep® FFPE specific DNA/RNA kit was significantly greater than either the Maxwell® 16 (p<0.0001) or the general AllPrep® DNA/RNA kit (p<0.0001).

Conclusions: Comparative evaluation of the six DNA extraction kits indicated that the semi-automated Maxwell® 16 was superior for whole blood extraction while the manual AllPrep® FFPE DNA/RNA kit (Qiagen) performed better for FFPE DNA extraction in terms of quantity of DNA obtained. All six extraction methods (blood and FFPE) performed well in terms of purity. Although there were variances in the quantity of DNA obtained, there were no significant differences in the efficiency of these methods in yielding amplifiable DNA extracts, as demonstrated by β-actin for whole blood specimens. In evaluation of FFPE DNA extraction methods, the Qiagen AllPrep® FFPE DNA/RNA Mini Kit was the best for applications requiring larger amplicons, but for smaller amplicons the Maxwell was most consistent.

Keywords: automation; method validation; nucleic acid extraction

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.