ArticleScientific reports2020
Optimization of subsampling, decontamination, and DNA extraction of difficult peat and silt permafrost samples.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hydrothermal regimes regulate microbiome patterns across vertical profile and their responses to alpine permafrost degradation.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Arsenic detoxification within thermo-alkaline biofilms.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Grinding Beads Influence Microbial DNA Extraction from Organic-Rich Sub-Seafloor Sediment.Microorganisms · 2022Article
- RIAM: A Universal Accessible Protocol for the Isolation of High Purity DNA from Various Soils and Other Humic Substances.Methods and protocols · 2022Article
- A Case Study for the Recovery of Authentic Microbial Ancient DNA from Soil Samples.Microorganisms · 2022Article
- Genomic reconstruction of fossil and living microorganisms in ancient Siberian permafrost.Microbiome · 2021Article
- Climate change, melting cryosphere and frozen pathogens: Should we worry…?Environmental sustainability (Singapore) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to act as a methodological guide for contamination monitoring, decontamination, and DNA extraction for peaty and silty permafrost samples with low biomass or difficult to extract DNA. We applied a biological tracer, either only in the field or both in the field and in the lab, via either spraying or painting. Spraying in the field followed by painting in the lab resulted in a uniform layer of the tracer on the core sections. A combination of bleaching, washing, and scraping resulted in complete removal of the tracer leaving sufficient material for DNA extraction, while other widely used decontamination methods did not remove all detectable tracer. In addition, of four widely used commercially available DNA extraction kits, only a modified ZymoBIOMICS DNA Microprep kit was able to acquire PCR amplifiable DNA. Permafrost chemical parameters, age, and soil texture did not have an effect on decontamination efficacy; however, the permafrost type did influence DNA extraction. Based on these findings, we developed recommendations for permafrost researchers to acquire contaminant-free DNA from permafrost with low biomass.
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.