Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35181723›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Comparing DNA yield from fish scales following different extraction protocols.

Loraine Shuttleworth, Carel Jakobus Oosthuizen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Loraine ShuttleworthDepartment of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X20, Hatfield, 0028, South Africa.
Carel Jakobus OosthuizenDepartment of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X20, Hatfield, 0028, South Africa. carel.oosthuizen@up.ac.za.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies on genetic diversity, adaptive potential and fitness of species have become a major tool in conservation biology. These studies require biological material containing a reliable source of DNA which can be extracted and analysed. Recently, non-invasive sampling has become the preferred sampling method of such biological material; particularly when studying endangered species. Elasmoid scales from teleost fish are an example of non-invasive samples from which DNA can successfully be extracted. This study compared different extraction protocols to find an optimal method for extracting DNA from teleost fish scales. This was done with the intent to use the protocol that yielded the highest quantity of DNA on dried, archived scales. The protocols tested in this study included (1) phenol/chloroform with a TNES-urea digestion buffer, (2) phenol/chloroform with an amniocyte digestion buffer and (3) Qiagen DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit with variations in incubation times and temperatures of each protocol. While the phenol/chloroform with TNES-urea digestion buffer yielded significantly higher concentrations of DNA compared to the other protocols, all protocols followed in this study yielded sufficient quantities of DNA for further downstream applications. Therefore, while there are multiple viable options when selecting a DNA extraction protocol, each research project's individual needs, requirements and resources need to be carefully considered in order to choose the most effective protocol.

Indexed as

AnimalsChloroformDNAFishesPhenolPolymerase Chain ReactionSpecimen HandlingChloroformDNAPhenol

Identifiers

PMID35181723
PMCPMC8857249

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.