ArticleScientific reports2022
A novel and non-invasive method for DNA extraction from dry bee specimens.
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Type Genomics: A Framework for Integrating Genomic Data into Biodiversity and Taxonomic Research.Systematic biology · 2025Guideline
- The Evolution of Bees: Insights from 'Omic Studies.Genome biology and evolution · 2026Review
- MOX Sensors for Authenticity Assessment and Adulteration Detection in Extra Virgin Olive Oil (EVOO).Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A non-destructive, fast, inexpensive, non-toxic chelating resin-based DNA extraction protocol for insect voucher specimens and associated microbiomes.Journal of insect science (Online) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years molecular techniques have been used on museum material as integrative support for classic taxonomy. This cumulative systematics approach is especially for rare or extinct specimens, and genetic analysis may be useful to discern information that is not possible to glean from live materials or morphology. To date, the extraction of DNA required at least a partial destruction of the specimens, which is not possible for all individuals, especially the types. In this study, we described a novel method to extract mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from pinned museum bee individuals to avoid any external morphological damage. This method was able to amplify the mtDNA Cytochrome C oxidase subunit I (COI) gene in bee samples collected up to 27 years ago. We tested the efficacy of this method on 72 preserved be specimens belonging to nine species among four families, it could be used on many museums' rare and/or extinct bee species because it does not provide external morphological damages. The method could be helpful for providing ecological, taxonomic, and phylogenetic information about specimens preserved in museum collections.
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.