Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15072582›Full record

ArticleBMC ecology2004

Collecting, archiving and processing DNA from wildlife samples using FTA databasing paper.

L M Smith, L A Burgoyne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC ecology, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

66 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Optimization of Breeding Tools in Quinoa (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

L M SmithSchool of Biochemical and Biomedical Sciences, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA 6009. LMSmith@cyllene.uwa.edu.au
L A Burgoyne

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMethods involving the analysis of nucleic acids have become widespread in the fields of traditional biology and ecology, however the storage and transport of samples collected in the field to the laboratory in such a manner to allow purification of intact nucleic acids can prove problematical.

resultsFTA databasing paper is widely used in human forensic analysis for the storage of biological samples and for purification of nucleic acids. The possible uses of FTA databasing paper in the purification of DNA from samples of wildlife origin were examined, with particular reference to problems expected due to the nature of samples of wildlife origin. The processing of blood and tissue samples, the possibility of excess DNA in blood samples due to nucleated erythrocytes, and the analysis of degraded samples were all examined, as was the question of long term storage of blood samples on FTA paper. Examples of the end use of the purified DNA are given for all protocols and the rationale behind the processing procedures is also explained to allow the end user to adjust the protocols as required.

conclusionsFTA paper is eminently suitable for collection of, and purification of nucleic acids from, biological samples from a wide range of wildlife species. This technology makes the collection and storage of such samples much simpler.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnimals, WildBirdsBlood Specimen CollectionBrachyuraCattleChickensColumbidaeDecapodaDNAGalliformesLizardsMolluscaMouth MucosaPaperPolymerase Chain ReactionDNA

Identifiers

PMID15072582
PMCPMC406513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.