ArticleMethodsX2019
Comparison and optimization for DNA extraction of archived fish specimens.
Article in MethodsX, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- BeeGees: A High-Throughput Protein-Coding DNA Barcode Recovery Pipeline Tailored for Genome Skims of Museum Specimens.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- Article
- Minimally destructive hDNA extraction method for retrospective genetics of pinned historical Lepidoptera specimens.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The global depth range of marine fishes and their genetic coverage for environmental DNA metabarcoding.Ecology and evolution · 2023Review
- Mitogenome recovered from a 19ZooKeys · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The DNA extracted from museum alcohol-fixed specimens can be a valuable source of information for solving taxonomic, phylogenetic, ecological and conservational questions. However, this type of DNA, also called ancient DNA, is routinely obtained in small portions and highly fragmented. We have tested two different extraction kits in museum type-specimens of the fish family Characidae. Aiming to increase the DNA yield, we made modifications on a Qiagen manufacturer protocol, in the elution step. Also, to overcome the issue of DNA fragmentation, we applied our efforts in Sanger sequencing, to find a highly variable and, in result, informative COI fragment. Based on our results, there is no correlation between amount of the DNA extracted and the age of the sample. The Sanger sequencing generated sequences which are useful in solving taxonomic puzzles. Here are presented the customization and guidelines that allowed us to recover DNA from the archived fish specimens. •DNA extraction from archived fish specimens is more effective when using silica columns.•Change of the elution times from minutes in room temperature to 24 h in freezer greatly improved the DNA yielded.•Short but highly variable sequences replace the need to sequence the entire gene to identify a species.
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.