Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28580543›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2017

Assessment of alternatives to environmental toxic formalin for DNA conservation in biological specimens.

Emeline Sarot, Marie-Françoise Carillo-Baraglioli, Francis Duranthon, Amandine Péquignot, Stéphane Pyronnet

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Deep silicification-assisted long-term preservation of structural and genomic information across biospecies: From micro to macro.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Emeline SarotINSERM-UMR1037, Université de Toulouse, Centre de Recherches en Cancérologie de Toulouse (CRCT), Equipe Labellisée Ligue Contre le Cancer, Laboratoire d'Excellence Toulouse Cancer (LabEx TOUCAN), 31037, Toulouse, France.
Marie-Françoise Carillo-BaraglioliMuséum d'Histoire Naturelle de Toulouse, 35 allées Jules Guesde, 31000, Toulouse, France.
Francis DuranthonMuséum d'Histoire Naturelle de Toulouse, 35 allées Jules Guesde, 31000, Toulouse, France.
Amandine PéquignotPatrimoine Locaux et Gouvernance, UMR208, Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 36 rue Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, 75005, Paris, France.
Stéphane PyronnetINSERM-UMR1037, Université de Toulouse, Centre de Recherches en Cancérologie de Toulouse (CRCT), Equipe Labellisée Ligue Contre le Cancer, Laboratoire d'Excellence Toulouse Cancer (LabEx TOUCAN), 31037, Toulouse, France. stephane.pyronnet@inserm.fr.
Centre de Recherches Interdisciplinaires en Histoire, Histoire de l'Art et Musicologie · FRInserm · FRUniversité Fédérale de Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One essential step of museum and clinical specimen preservation is immersion in a fixative fluid to prevent degradation. Formalin is the most largely used fixative, but its benefit is balanced with its toxic and carcinogenic status. Moreover, because formalin-fixation impairs nucleic acids recovery and quality, current museum wet collections and formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded clinical samples do not represent optimal tanks of molecular information. Our study has been developed to compare formalin to two alternative fixatives (RCL2® and ethanol) in a context of molecular exploitation. Based on a unique protocol, we created mammalian fixed collections, simulated the impact of time on preservation using an artificial ageing treatment and followed the evolution of specimens' DNA quality. DNA extraction yield, purity, visual integrity and qualitative and quantitative ability to amplify the Cox1 gene were assessed. Our results show that both RCL2 and ethanol exhibit better performances than formalin. They do not impair DNA extraction yield, and more importantly, DNA alteration is delayed over the preservation step. The use of RCL2 or ethanol as fixative in biological collections may insure a better exploitation of the genetic resources they propose.

Indexed as

DNAFormaldehydeTissue FixationAnimalsFixativesHumansNucleic AcidsDNAFixativesFormaldehydeNucleic AcidsCarcinogenicDNA preservationEthanolFixativeFluid collectionFormalinMammalsRCL2

Identifiers

PMID28580543
OpenAlexW2621207434

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.