ArticlePeerJ2020
Improving sustainable use of genetic resources in biodiversity archives.
Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cytochrome b sequence of the Mazama americana jucunda Thomas, 1913 holotype reveals Mazama bororo Duarte, 1996 as its junior synonym.Genetics and molecular biology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tissue sample databases housed in biodiversity archives represent a vast trove of genetic resources, and these tissues are often destructively subsampled and provided to researchers for DNA extractions and subsequent sequencing. While obtaining a sufficient quantity of DNA for downstream applications is vital for these researchers, it is also important to preserve tissue resources for future use given that the original material is destructively and consumptively sampled with each use. It is therefore necessary to develop standardized tissue subsampling and loaning procedures to ensure that tissues are being used efficiently. In this study, we specifically focus on the efficiency of DNA extraction methods by using anuran liver and muscle tissues maintained at a biodiversity archive. We conducted a series of experiments to test whether current practices involving coarse visual assessments of tissue size are effective, how tissue mass correlates with DNA yield and concentration, and whether the amount of DNA recovered is correlated with sample age. We found that tissue samples between 2 and 8 mg resulted in the most efficient extractions, with tissues at the lower end of this range providing more DNA per unit mass and tissues at the higher end of this range providing more total DNA. Additionally, we found no correlation between tissue age and DNA yield. Because we find that even very small tissue subsamples tend to yield far more DNA than is required by researchers for modern sequencing applications (including whole genome shotgun sequencing), we recommend that biodiversity archives consider dramatically improving sustainable use of their archived material by providing researchers with set quantities of extracted DNA rather than with the subsampled tissues themselves.
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.