ArticleParasitology research2015
Constructing and detecting a cDNA library for mites.
Article in Parasitology research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification and genetic characterisatin of cathepsin L in Demodex.Experimental & applied acarology · 2023Article
- De novo transcriptome sequencing and differential gene expression analysis of two parasitic human Demodex species.Parasitology research · 2019Article
- Preliminary analysis of Psoroptes ovis transcriptome in different developmental stages.Parasites & vectors · 2016Article
- De novo RNA-Seq and functional annotation of Sarcoptes scabiei canis.Parasitology research · 2016Article
- Improvement on the extraction method of RNA in mites and its quality test.Parasitology research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RNA extraction and construction of complementary DNA (cDNA) library for mites have been quite challenging due to difficulties in acquiring tiny living mites and breaking their hard chitin. The present study is to explore a better method to construct cDNA library for mites that will lay the foundation on transcriptome and molecular pathogenesis research. We selected Psoroptes cuniculi as an experimental subject and took the following steps to construct and verify cDNA library. First, we combined liquid nitrogen grinding with TRIzol for total RNA extraction. Then, switching mechanism at 5' end of the RNA transcript (SMART) technique was used to construct full-length cDNA library. To evaluate the quality of cDNA library, the library titer and recombination rate were calculated. The reliability of cDNA library was detected by sequencing and analyzing positive clones and genes amplified by specific primers. The results showed that the RNA concentration was 836 ng/μl and the absorbance ratio at 260/280 nm was 1.82. The library titer was 5.31 × 10(5) plaque-forming unit (PFU)/ml and the recombination rate was 98.21%, indicating that the library was of good quality. In the 33 expressed sequence tags (ESTs) of P. cuniculi, two clones of 1656 and 1658 bp were almost identical with only three variable sites detected, which had an identity of 99.63% with that of Psoroptes ovis, indicating that the cDNA library was reliable. Further detection by specific primers demonstrated that the 553-bp Pso c II gene sequences of P. cuniculi had an identity of 98.56% with those of P. ovis, confirming that the cDNA library was not only reliable but also feasible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26174488What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.