Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24392157›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

An improved protocol for intact chloroplasts and cpDNA isolation in conifers.

Leila do Nascimento Vieira, Helisson Faoro, Hugo Pacheco de Freitas Fraga, Marcelo Rogalski, Emanuel Maltempi de Souza, Fábio de Oliveira Pedrosa, Rubens Onofre Nodari, Miguel Pedro Guerra

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The complete chloroplast genome ofMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2020
    Article
  17. Illumina sequencing of complete chloroplast genome ofMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Leila do Nascimento VieiraDepartamento de Fitotecnia, Programa de Pós Graduação em Recursos Genéticos Vegetais, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Helisson FaoroDepartamento de Bioquímica e Biologia Molecular, Núcleo de Fixação Biológica de Nitrogênio, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.
Hugo Pacheco de Freitas FragaDepartamento de Fitotecnia, Programa de Pós Graduação em Recursos Genéticos Vegetais, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Marcelo RogalskiDepartamento de Biologia Vegetal, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Emanuel Maltempi de SouzaDepartamento de Bioquímica e Biologia Molecular, Núcleo de Fixação Biológica de Nitrogênio, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.
Fábio de Oliveira PedrosaDepartamento de Bioquímica e Biologia Molecular, Núcleo de Fixação Biológica de Nitrogênio, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.
Rubens Onofre NodariDepartamento de Fitotecnia, Programa de Pós Graduação em Recursos Genéticos Vegetais, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Miguel Pedro GuerraDepartamento de Fitotecnia, Programa de Pós Graduação em Recursos Genéticos Vegetais, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina · BRUniversidade Federal do Paraná · BRUniversidade Federal de Viçosa · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPerforming chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) isolation is considered a major challenge among different plant groups, especially conifers. Isolating chloroplasts in conifers by such conventional methods as sucrose gradient and high salt has not been successful. So far, plastid genome sequencing protocols for conifer species have been based mainly on long-range PCR, which is known to be time-consuming and difficult to implement. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsWe developed a protocol for cpDNA isolation using three different conifer families: Araucaria angustifolia and Araucaria bidwilli (Araucariaceae), Podocarpus lambertii (Podocarpaceae) and Pinus patula (Pinaceae). The present protocol is based on high salt isolation buffer followed by saline Percoll gradient. Combining these two strategies allowed enhanced chloroplast isolation, along with decreased contamination caused by polysaccharides, polyphenols, proteins, and nuclear DNA in cpDNA. Microscopy images confirmed the presence of intact chloroplasts in high abundance. This method was applied to cpDNA isolation and subsequent sequencing by Illumina MiSeq (2×250 bp), using only 50 ng of cpDNA. Reference-guided chloroplast genome mapping showed that high average coverage was achieved for all evaluated species: 24.63 for A. angustifolia, 135.97 for A. bidwilli, 1196.10 for P. lambertii, and 64.68 for P. patula.

conclusionResults show that this improved protocol is suitable for enhanced quality and yield of chloroplasts and cpDNA isolation from conifers, providing a useful tool for studies that require isolated chloroplasts and/or whole cpDNA sequences.

Indexed as

Cell FractionationChloroplastsDNA, ChloroplastGenome, ChloroplastSequence Analysis, DNASubcellular FractionsTracheophytaDNA, Chloroplast

Identifiers

PMID24392157
PMCPMC3879346
OpenAlexW2019036532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.