Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32793297›Full record

ArticlePlant methods2020

SILEX: a fast and inexpensive high-quality DNA extraction method suitable for multiple sequencing platforms and recalcitrant plant species.

Santiago Vilanova, David Alonso, Pietro Gramazio, Mariola Plazas, Edgar García-Fortea, Paola Ferrante, Maximilian Schmidt, María José Díez, Björn Usadel, Giovanni Giuliano and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. A novel tomato interspecific (Horticulture research · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors.

Santiago Vilanova *Instituto de Conservación y Mejora de la Agrodiversidad Valenciana, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera 14, 46022 Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4939-9713
David Alonso *Instituto de Conservación y Mejora de la Agrodiversidad Valenciana, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera 14, 46022 Valencia, Spain.
Pietro GramazioFaculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, 305-8572 Tsukuba, Japan.
Mariola PlazasInstituto de Conservación y Mejora de la Agrodiversidad Valenciana, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera 14, 46022 Valencia, Spain.
Edgar García-ForteaInstituto de Conservación y Mejora de la Agrodiversidad Valenciana, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera 14, 46022 Valencia, Spain.
Paola FerranteENEA, Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, Rome, Italy.
Maximilian SchmidtBG-4 Bioinformatics, Forschungszentrum Jülich, 52428 Jülich, Germany.
María José DíezInstituto de Conservación y Mejora de la Agrodiversidad Valenciana, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera 14, 46022 Valencia, Spain.
Björn UsadelBG-4 Bioinformatics, Forschungszentrum Jülich, 52428 Jülich, Germany.
Giovanni GiulianoENEA, Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, Rome, Italy.
Jaime ProhensInstituto de Conservación y Mejora de la Agrodiversidad Valenciana, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera 14, 46022 Valencia, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of sequencing and genotyping platforms has undergone dramatic improvements, enabling the generation of a wealth of genomic information. Despite this progress, the availability of high-quality genomic DNA (gDNA) in sufficient concentrations is often a main limitation, especially for third-generation sequencing platforms. A variety of DNA extraction methods and commercial kits are available. However, many of these are costly and frequently give either low yield or low-quality DNA, inappropriate for next generation sequencing (NGS) platforms. Here, we describe a fast and inexpensive DNA extraction method (SILEX) applicable to a wide range of plant species and tissues.

resultsSILEX is a high-throughput DNA extraction protocol, based on the standard CTAB method with a DNA silica matrix recovery, which allows obtaining NGS-quality high molecular weight genomic plant DNA free of inhibitory compounds. SILEX was compared with a standard CTAB extraction protocol and a common commercial extraction kit in a variety of species, including recalcitrant ones, from different families. In comparison with the other methods, SILEX yielded DNA in higher concentrations and of higher quality. Manual extraction of 48 samples can be done in 96 min by one person at a cost of 0.12 €/sample of reagents and consumables. Hundreds of tomato gDNA samples obtained with either SILEX or the commercial kit were successfully genotyped with Single Primer Enrichment Technology (SPET) with the Illumina HiSeq 2500 platform. Furthermore, DNA extracted from

conclusionsA high-throughput, fast and inexpensive DNA extraction protocol was developed and validated for a wide variety of plants and tissues. SILEX offers an easy, scalable, efficient and inexpensive way to extract DNA for various next-generation sequencing applications including SPET and Nanopore among others.

Indexed as

Contaminant-free DNACTAB protocolDNA extractionHigh-molecular-weight DNAHigh-throughput genotypingNanoporeNext-generation sequencingRecalcitrant speciesSilica matrixSPET

Identifiers

PMID32793297
PMCPMC7419208

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.