Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33614282›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2021

The effect of ethanol concentration on the morphological and molecular preservation of insects for biodiversity studies.

Daniel Marquina, Mateusz Buczek, Fredrik Ronquist, Piotr Łukasik

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Genetic variability withinResearch square · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Characterization of the gut microbiome of wildFrontiers in microbiomes · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Three steps towards comparability and standardization among molecular methods for characterizing insect communities.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Daniel MarquinaDepartment of Bioinformatics and Genetics, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm, Sweden.
Mateusz BuczekInstitute of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland.
Fredrik RonquistDepartment of Bioinformatics and Genetics, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm, Sweden.
Piotr ŁukasikDepartment of Bioinformatics and Genetics, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm, Sweden.
Swedish Museum of Natural History · SEJagiellonian University · PLStockholm University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditionally, insects collected for scientific purposes have been dried and pinned, or preserved in 70% ethanol. Both methods preserve taxonomically informative exoskeletal structures well but are suboptimal for preserving DNA for molecular biology. Highly concentrated ethanol (95-100%), preferred as a DNA preservative, has generally been assumed to make specimens brittle and prone to breaking. However, systematic studies on the correlation between ethanol concentration and specimen preservation are lacking. Here, we tested how preservative ethanol concentration in combination with different sample handling regimes affect the integrity of seven insect species representing four orders, and differing substantially in the level of sclerotization. After preservation and treatments (various levels of disturbance), we counted the number of appendages (legs, wings, antennae, or heads) that each specimen had lost. Additionally, we assessed the preservation of DNA after long-term storage by comparing the ratio of PCR amplicon copy numbers to an added artificial standard. We found that high ethanol concentrations indeed induce brittleness in insects. However, the magnitude and nature of the effect varied strikingly among species. In general, ethanol concentrations at or above 90% made the insects more brittle, but for species with robust, thicker exoskeletons, this did not translate to an increased loss of appendages. Neither freezing the samples nor drying the insects after immersion in ethanol had a negative effect on the retention of appendages. However, the morphology of the insects was severely damaged if they were allowed to dry. We also found that DNA preserves less well at lower ethanol concentrations when stored at room temperature for an extended period. However, the magnitude of the effect varies among species; the concentrations at which the number of COI amplicon copies relative to the standard was significantly decreased compared to 95% ethanol ranged from 90% to as low as 50%. While higher ethanol concentrations positively affect long-term DNA preservation, there is a clear trade-off between preserving insects for morphological examination and genetic analysis. The optimal ethanol concentration for the latter is detrimental for the former, and vice versa. These trade-offs need to be considered in large insect biodiversity surveys and other projects aiming to combine molecular work with traditional morphology-based characterization of collected specimens.

Indexed as

CollectionDNA preservationEthanolInsectsMorphology

Identifiers

PMID33614282
PMCPMC7883690
OpenAlexW3133185274

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.