Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30997294›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2019

Extracting the invisible: obtaining high quality DNA is a challenging task in small arthropods.

Andrea Lienhard, Sylvia Schäffer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  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. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
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

2 authors.

Andrea LienhardInstitute of Biology, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Sylvia SchäfferInstitute of Biology, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-6325-1497

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 27843
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe application of an appropriate extraction method is a relevant factor for the success of all molecular studies.

methodsSeven different DNA extraction methods suitable for high-throughput DNA sequencing with very small arthropods were compared by applying nine different protocols: three silica gel based spin methods, two cetyltrimethyl ammonium bromide (CTAB) based ones (one with an additional silica membrane), a protein precipitation method and a method based on a chelating resin (applying different protocols). The quantity (concentration) and quality (degradation, contamination, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and sequencing success) of the extracted DNA as well as the costs, preparation times, user friendliness, and required supplies were compared across these methods. To assess the DNA quantity, two different DNA concentration measurements were applied. Additionally, the effect of varying amounts of starting material (different body sizes), variable lysis temperatures and mixing during DNA extraction was evaluated.

resultsAlthough low DNA concentrations were measured for all methods, the results showed that-with the exception of two methods-the PCR success was 100%. However, other parameters show vast differences. The time taken to perform DNA extraction varied from 20 min to 2.5 h (Chelex vs. CTAB) and the costs from 0.02 to 3.46 € (Chelex vs. QIAamp kit) per sample. High quality genomic DNA was only gained from four methods. Results of DNA quantity measurements further indicated that some devices cannot deal with small amounts of DNA and show variant results. DISCUSSION: In conclusion, using Chelex (chelating resin) turned out as a rapid, low-cost method which can provide high quality DNA for different kinds of molecular investigations.

Indexed as

AcariComparisonDNA extractionDNA quantificationPCR

Identifiers

PMID30997294
PMCPMC6463856

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.