Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32817618›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

DESS deconstructed: Is EDTA solely responsible for protection of high molecular weight DNA in this common tissue preservative?

Amy Sharpe, Sonia Barrios, Sarah Gayer, Elisha Allan-Perkins, David Stein, Hannah J Appiah-Madson, Rosalia Falco, Daniel L Distel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amy SharpeOcean Genome Legacy Center, Northeastern University, Nahant, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Sonia BarriosOcean Genome Legacy Center, Northeastern University, Nahant, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Sarah GayerOcean Genome Legacy Center, Northeastern University, Nahant, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Elisha Allan-PerkinsBrookline, New Hampshire, United States of America.
David SteinOcean Genome Legacy Center, Northeastern University, Nahant, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Hannah J Appiah-MadsonOcean Genome Legacy Center, Northeastern University, Nahant, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Rosalia FalcoOcean Genome Legacy Center, Northeastern University, Nahant, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Daniel L DistelOcean Genome Legacy Center, Northeastern University, Nahant, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Northeastern University · USNew England Institute of Art · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DESS is a formulation widely used to preserve DNA in biological tissue samples. Although it contains three ingredients, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and sodium chloride (NaCl), it is frequently referred to as a DMSO-based preservative. The effectiveness of DESS has been confirmed for a variety of taxa and tissues, however, to our knowledge, the contributions of each component of DESS to DNA preservation have not been evaluated. To address this question, we stored tissues of three aquatic taxa, Mytilus edulis (blue mussel), Faxonius virilis (virile crayfish) and Alitta virens (clam worm) in DESS, each component of DESS individually and solutions containing all combinations of two components of DESS. After storage at room temperature for intervals ranging from one day to six months, we extracted DNA from each tissue and measured the percentage of high molecular weight (HMW) DNA recovered (%R) and normalized HMW DNA yield (nY). Here, HMW DNA is defined as fragments >10 kb. For comparison, we also measured the %R and nY of HMW DNA from extracts of fresh tissues and those stored in 95% EtOH over the same time intervals. We found that in cases where DESS performed most effectively (yielding ≥ 20%R of HMW DNA), all solutions containing EDTA were as or more effective than DESS. Conversely, in cases where DESS performed more poorly, none of the six DESS-variant storage solutions provided better protection of HMW DNA than DESS. Moreover, for all taxa and storage intervals longer than one day, tissues stored in solutions containing DMSO alone, NaCl alone or DMSO and NaCl in combination resulted in %R and nY of HMW DNA significantly lower than those of fresh tissues. These results indicate that for the taxa, solutions and time intervals examined, only EDTA contributed directly to preservation of high molecular weight DNA.

Indexed as

AnimalsDNADrug CompoundingEdetic AcidMolecular WeightTissue PreservationDNAEdetic Acid

Identifiers

PMID32817618
PMCPMC7440624
OpenAlexW3081197804

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.