Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35677909›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2022

DNA/RNA Preservation in Glacial Snow and Ice Samples.

Christopher B Trivedi, Christoph Keuschnig, Catherine Larose, Daniel Vasconcelos Rissi, Rey Mourot, James A Bradley, Matthias Winkel, Liane G Benning

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 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. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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.

Christopher B TrivediInterface Geochemistry, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Potsdam, Germany.
Christoph KeuschnigEnvironmental Microbial Genomics, Université de Lyon, Ecully Cedex, France.
Catherine LaroseEnvironmental Microbial Genomics, Université de Lyon, Ecully Cedex, France.
Daniel Vasconcelos RissiInterface Geochemistry, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Potsdam, Germany.
Rey MourotInterface Geochemistry, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Potsdam, Germany.
James A BradleyInterface Geochemistry, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Potsdam, Germany.
Matthias WinkelInterface Geochemistry, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Potsdam, Germany.
Liane G BenningInterface Geochemistry, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Potsdam, Germany.

Funding

European Research Council 856416
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The preservation of nucleic acids for high-throughput sequencing is an ongoing challenge for field scientists. In particular, samples that are low biomass, or that have to be collected and preserved in logistically challenging environments (such as remote sites or during long sampling campaigns) can pose exceptional difficulties. With this work, we compare and assess the effectiveness of three preservation methods for DNA and RNA extracted from microbial communities of glacial snow and ice samples. Snow and ice samples were melted and filtered upon collection in Iceland, and filters were preserved using: (i) liquid nitrogen flash freezing, (ii) storage in RNAlater, or (iii) storage in Zymo DNA/RNA Shield. Comparative statistics covering nucleic acid recovery, sequencing library preparation, genome assembly, and taxonomic diversity were used to determine best practices for the preservation of DNA and RNA samples from these environments. Our results reveal that microbial community composition based on DNA was comparable at the class level across preservation types. Based on extracted RNA, the taxonomic composition of the active community was primarily driven by the filtered sample volume (i.e., biomass content). In low biomass samples (where <200 ml of sample volume was filtered) the taxonomic and functional signatures trend toward the composition of the control samples, while in samples where a larger volume (more biomass) was filtered our data showed comparable results independent of preservation type. Based on all comparisons our data suggests that flash freezing of filters containing low biomass is the preferred method for preserving DNA and RNA (notwithstanding the difficulties of accessing liquid nitrogen in remote glacial field sites). Generally, RNAlater and Zymo DNA/RNA Shield solutions work comparably well, especially for DNA from high biomass samples, but Zymo DNA/RNA Shield is favored due to its higher yield of preserved RNA. Biomass quantity from snow and ice samples appears to be the most important factor in regards to the collection and preservation of samples from glacial environments.

Indexed as

DNA/RNA preservationflash freezingglacial microbiologymetagenomicsmetatranscriptomicsRNAlaterZymo DNA/RNA Shield

Identifiers

PMID35677909
PMCPMC9168539

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.