ArticlePeerJ2017
Factors affecting genotyping success in giant panda fecal samples.
Article in PeerJ, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Maximizing the Quality of Non-Invasive Samples for Conservation Genetics Using Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing: A Comparison of Fecal DNA Preservation Methodologies.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Fecal DNA isolation and degradation in clam Cyclina sinensis: noninvasive DNA isolation for conservation and genetic assessment.BMC biotechnology · 2019Article
- Evaluation of fecal samples as a valid source of DNA by comparing paired blood and fecal samples from American bison (Bison bison).BMC genetics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fecal samples play an important role in giant panda conservation studies. Optimal preservation conditions and choice of microsatellites for giant panda fecal samples have not been established. In this study, we evaluated the effect of four factors (namely, storage type (ethanol (EtOH), EtOH -20 °C, 2-step storage medium, DMSO/EDTA/Tris/salt buffer (DETs) and frozen at -20 °C), storage time (one, three and six months), fragment length, and repeat motif of microsatellite loci) on the success rate of microsatellite amplification, allelic dropout (ADO) and false allele (FA) rates from giant panda fecal samples. Amplification success and ADO rates differed between the storage types. Freezing was inferior to the other four storage methods based on the lowest average amplification success and the highest ADO rates (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.