ArticlePloS one2020
Advantages of an easy-to-use DNA extraction method for minimal-destructive analysis of collection specimens.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Type Genomics: A Framework for Integrating Genomic Data into Biodiversity and Taxonomic Research.Systematic biology · 2025Guideline
- Exploring the Quality of Historic DNA From Pinned Beetles.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Article
- 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
- Multiple Introductions of the Asian Longhorned Tick (Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Facilitating high throughput collections-based genomics: a comparison of DNA extraction and library building methods.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- High-quality haploid genomes corroborate 29 chromosomes and highly conserved synteny of genes in Hyles hawkmoths (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae).BMC genomics · 2023Article
- Developing the Protocol Infrastructure for DNA Sequencing Natural History Collections.Biodiversity data journal · 2023Article
- The identity ofZooKeys · 2023Article
- Novel Gene Rearrangements in the Mitochondrial Genomes of Cynipoid Wasps (Hymenoptera: Cynipoidea).Genes · 2022Article
- Research on safety and compliance of imported microbial inoculants using high-throughput sequencing.Frontiers in medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Here we present and justify an approach for minimal-destructive DNA extraction from historic insect specimens for next generation sequencing applications. An increasing number of studies use insects from museum collections for biodiversity research. However, the availability of specimens for molecular analyses has been limited by the degraded nature of the DNA gained from century-old museum material and the consumptive nature of most DNA extraction procedures. The method described in this manuscript enabled us to successfully extract DNA from specimens as old as 241 years using a minimal-destructive approach. The direct comparison of the DNeasy extraction Kit and the Monarch® PCR & DNA Clean-up Kit showed a significant increase of 17.3-fold higher DNA yield extracted with the Monarch Oligo protocol on average. By using an extraction protocol originally designed for oligonucleotide clean-up, we were able to combine overcoming the restrictions by target fragment size and strand state, with minimising time consumption and labour-intensity. The type specimens used for the minimal-destructive DNA extraction exhibited no significant external change or post-extraction damage, while sufficient DNA was retrieved for analyses.
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.