ArticleParasites & vectors2020
Evaluation of different storage times and preservation methods on phlebotomine sand fly DNA concentration and purity.
Article in Parasites & vectors, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Processing and mounting phlebotomine sand flies: a consensus guideline.Parasite (Paris, France) · 2026Article
- Re-evaluation of certain aspects of the EFSA Scientific Opinion of April 2010 on risk assessment of parasites in fishery products, based on new scientific data. Part 1: ToRs1-3.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2024Article
- Detection of Ovine or Bovine Milk Components in Commercial Camel Milk Powder Using a PCR-Based Method.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Genetic Identification of Edible Bird's Nest in Thailand Based on ARMS-PCR.Frontiers in genetics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDifferent methods have been used to preserve phlebotomine sand flies for research purposes, including for taxonomic studies and detection of Leishmania spp. Here, we evaluated the effect of various preservation methods at different storage times on phlebotomine sand fly DNA concentration and purity.
methodsField-collected phlebotomine sand flies were individually stored in 70% ethanol (G1) and 95% ethanol (G2) at room temperature, 70% ethanol (G3) and 95% ethanol (G4) at 8 °C or frozen dry (i.e. no preservation solution) at - 20 °C (G5). DNA concentration and purity were assessed at various storage times (T1, ≤ 12 h; T2, 3 months; T3, 6 months; T4, 9 months; and T5, 12 months). Fragments of the cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 (cox1) and cacophony (CAC) genes of phlebotomine sand flies were also amplified.
resultsMean DNA concentration (P = 0.178) and 260/280 purity ratios (P = 0.584) did not vary significantly among various preservation methods and storage times. Within each group, DNA concentration varied in G1 (Kruskal-Wallis H-test, P = 0.009) for T3 vs T4 (Dunn's post-hoc, P < 0.05), and in G2 (Kruskal-Wallis H-test, P = 0.004) for T1 vs T2 and T1 vs T4 (Dunn's post-hoc, P < 0.05). For 260/280 purity ratios, the only statistically significant difference was found for G5 (Kruskal-Wallis H-test, P = 0.020) between T1 vs T4 (Dunn's post-hoc test, P < 0.05). The cox1 and CAC genes were successfully amplified, regardless of the preservation method and storage time; except in one sample from G2 at T1, for which the CAC gene failed to amplify.
conclusionsThe preservation methods and storage times herein evaluated did not affect the concentration and purity of DNA samples obtained from field-collected phlebotomine sand flies, for up to 12 months. Furthermore, these preservation methods did not interfere with PCR amplification of CAC and cox1 genes, being suitable for molecular analyses under the conditions studied herein.
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.