ArticlePloS one2019
Quality and quantity of dromedary camel DNA sampled from whole-blood, saliva, and tail-hair.
Article in PloS one, 2019. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Towards phenotyping adaptive traits in camels: A study of the influence of hypotonic saline solutions on blood cell area.PloS one · 2024Article
- Mitochondrial Sequence Variation, Haplotype Diversity, and Relationships Among Dromedary Camel-Types.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Cdrom Archive: A Gateway to Study Camel Phenotypes.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Camels are livestock with unique adaptations to hot-arid regions. To effectively study camel traits, a biobank of camel DNA specimens with associated biological information is needed. We examined whole-blood, saliva (buccal swabs), and tail-hair follicle samples to determine which is the best source for establishing a DNA biobank. We inspected five amounts of each of whole-blood, buccal swabs, and tail-hair follicles in nine camels, both qualitatively via gel electrophoresis and quantitatively using a NanoDrop spectrophotometer. We also tested the effects of long term-storage on the quality and quantity of DNA, and measured the rate of degradation, by analyzing three buccal swab samples and 30 tail-hair follicles over a period of nine months. Good quality DNA, in the form of visible large size DNA bands, was extracted from all three sources, for all five amounts. The five volumes of whole-blood samples (20-100μl) provided ~0.4-3.6 μg, the five quantities of buccal swabs (1-5) produced ~0.1-12 μg, while the five amounts of tail-hair follicles (10-50) resulted in ~0.7-25 μg. No differences in the rate of degradation of buccal swab and tail-hair follicle DNA were detected, but there was clearly greater deterioration in the quality of DNA extracted from buccal swabs when compared to tail-hair follicles. We recommend using tail-hair samples for camel DNA biobanking, because it resulted in both an adequate quality and quantity of DNA, along with its ease of collection, transportation, and storage. Compared to its success in studies of other domesticated animals, we anticipate that using ~50 tail-hair follicles will provide sufficient DNA for sequencing or SNP genotyping.
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.