Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31938475›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2019

Utilizing field collected insects for next generation sequencing: Effects of sampling, storage, and DNA extraction methods.

Kimberly M Ballare, Nathaniel S Pope, Antonio R Castilla, Sarah Cusser, Richard P Metz, Shalene Jha

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. The Evolution of Bees: Insights from 'Omic Studies.Genome biology and evolution · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kimberly M BallareDepartment of Integrative Biology The University of Texas at Austin Austin TX USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1824-3364
Nathaniel S PopeDepartment of Integrative Biology The University of Texas at Austin Austin TX USA.
Antonio R CastillaDepartment of Integrative Biology The University of Texas at Austin Austin TX USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4124-738X
Sarah CusserDepartment of Integrative Biology The University of Texas at Austin Austin TX USA.
Richard P MetzGenomics and Bioinformatics Service Texas A&M AgriLife Research College Station TX USA.
Shalene JhaDepartment of Integrative Biology The University of Texas at Austin Austin TX USA.
The University of Texas at Austin · USTexas A&M University System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA sequencing technologies continue to advance the biological sciences, expanding opportunities for genomic studies of non-model organisms for basic and applied questions. Despite these opportunities, many next generation sequencing protocols have been developed assuming a substantial quantity of high molecular weight DNA (>100 ng), which can be difficult to obtain for many study systems. In particular, the ability to sequence field-collected specimens that exhibit varying levels of DNA degradation remains largely unexplored. In this study we investigate the influence of five traditional insect capture and curation methods on Double-Digest Restriction Enzyme Associated DNA (ddRAD) sequencing success for three wild bee species. We sequenced a total of 105 specimens (between 7-13 specimens per species and treatment). We additionally investigated how different DNA quality metrics (including pre-sequence concentration and contamination) predicted downstream sequencing success, and also compared two DNA extraction methods. We report successful library preparation for all specimens, with all treatments and extraction methods producing enough highly reliable loci for population genetic analyses. Although results varied between species, we found that specimens collected by net sampling directly into 100% EtOH, or by passive trapping followed by 100% EtOH storage before pinning tended to produce higher quality ddRAD assemblies, likely as a result of rapid specimen desiccation. Surprisingly, we found that specimens preserved in propylene glycol during field sampling exhibited lower-quality assemblies. We provide recommendations for each treatment, extraction method, and DNA quality assessment, and further encourage researchers to consider utilizing a wider variety of specimens for genomic analyses.

Indexed as

curated insectsddRADdegraded DNAnext generation sequencingpan trapspropylene glycol

Identifiers

PMID31938475
PMCPMC6953651
OpenAlexW2993120945

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.