ArticlePeerJ2019
Extracting the invisible: obtaining high quality DNA is a challenging task in small arthropods.
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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and clinical validation of an ERA-CRISPR/Cas12a assay for the rapid detection of 14 high-risk HPV types.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Processing and mounting phlebotomine sand flies: a consensus guideline.Parasite (Paris, France) · 2026Article
- Differences in virulence and drug resistance betweenVirulence · 2025Article
- Identifying Novel DNA Adducts in Amphipods and Developing Sample Preparation for Adductomics Using Dispersive Solid-Phase Extraction.Environmental science & technology · 2025Article
- Scalable and cost-effective methods for xenomonitoring of P. falciparum and antimalarial drug resistance validated with laboratory and wild-caught mosquitoes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Analysis of comprehensive genomic profiling of solid tumors with a novel assay for broad analysis in clinical diagnostics.Molecular oncology · 2025Article
- A non-destructive, fast, inexpensive, non-toxic chelating resin-based DNA extraction protocol for insect voucher specimens and associated microbiomes.Journal of insect science (Online) · 2025Article
- Tissue-specific DNA isolation from dissected millipedes for nanopore sequencing.Biology methods & protocols · 2025Article
- Simple protocol for combined extraction of exocrine secretions and RNA in small arthropods.Biology methods & protocols · 2024Article
- Assessing Molecular Diversity in Native and Introduced Populations of Red Wood AntAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Effect of Carbonyl Cyanide Chlorophenylhydrazone on Intrabacterial Concentration and Antimicrobial Activity of Amphenicols against Swine Resistant Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae and Pasteurella multocida.Veterinary research communications · 2022Article
- Assessment of biofilm formation by Campylobacter spp. isolates mimicking poultry slaughterhouse conditions.Poultry science · 2022Article
- Hidden biodiversity in microarthropods (Acari, Oribatida, Eremaeoidea, Caleremaeus).Scientific reports · 2021Article
- The Uptake of Sporopollenin Exine Capsules and Associated Bioavailability of Adsorbed Oestradiol in Selected Aquatic Invertebrates.Bulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology · 2021Article
- Article
- Evaluation of V2 18S rDNA barcode marker and assessment of sample collection and DNA extraction methods for metabarcoding of autotrophic euglenids.Environmental microbiology · 2021Article
- Comparative evaluation of different molecular methods for DNA extraction from individual Teladorsagia circumcincta nematodes.BMC biotechnology · 2021Article
- Optimization of high molecular weight DNA extraction methods in shrimp for a long-read sequencing platform.PeerJ · 2020Article
- A Guide to Carrying Out a Phylogenomic Target Sequence Capture Project.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
2 authors.
Funding
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
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.