Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35946988›Full record

ArticleGigaScience2022

Benchmarking ultra-high molecular weight DNA preservation methods for long-read and long-range sequencing.

Hollis A Dahn, Jacquelyn Mountcastle, Jennifer Balacco, Sylke Winkler, Iliana Bista, Anthony D Schmitt, Olga Vinnere Pettersson, Giulio Formenti, Karen Oliver, Michelle Smith and 12 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GigaScience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

22 authors at 12 institutions in 7 countries.

Hollis A DahnDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3B2, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9777-2303
Jacquelyn MountcastleThe Rockefeller University, New York, NY 10065, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1078-4905
Jennifer BalaccoThe Rockefeller University, New York, NY 10065, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7102-1632
Sylke WinklerMax Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Saxony 01307, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0915-3316
Iliana BistaTree of Life Program, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire CB10 1SA, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6155-3093
Anthony D SchmittArima Genomics, Inc., San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
Olga Vinnere PetterssonNational Genomics Infrastructure, SciLifeLab, Uppsala University, Uppsala 75108, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-5597-1870
Giulio FormentiThe Rockefeller University, New York, NY 10065, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7554-5991
Karen OliverTree of Life Program, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire CB10 1SA, UK.
Michelle SmithTree of Life Program, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire CB10 1SA, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5288-0001
Wenhua TanMax Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Saxony 01307, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5208-8126
Anne KrausMax Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Saxony 01307, Germany.
Stephen MacArima Genomics, Inc., San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
Lisa M KomoroskeDepartment of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003-9285, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0676-7053
Tanya LamaDepartment of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003-9285, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7372-8081
Andrew J CrawfordDepartment of Biological Sciences, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá 111711, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0003-3153-6898
Robert W MurphyDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3B2, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8555-2338
Samara BrownThe Rockefeller University, New York, NY 10065, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0391-2016
Alan F ScottDepartment of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9706-7839
Phillip A MorinSouthwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3279-1519
Erich D JarvisThe Rockefeller University, New York, NY 10065, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8931-5049
Olivier FedrigoThe Rockefeller University, New York, NY 10065, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6450-7551
Rockefeller University · USMax Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics · DEArima Genomics (United States) · USUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst · USUniversity of Toronto · CAWellcome Sanger Institute · GBHoward Hughes Medical Institute · USJohns Hopkins University · USNOAA National Marine Fisheries Service · USUniversidad de Los Andes · COUniversity of Cambridge · GBUppsala University · SE

Funding

Wellcome Trust 092096/Z/10/ZWellcome Trust 104640/Z/14/ZWellcome Trust 207492/Z/17/ZWellcome Trust WT207492
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies in vertebrate genomics require sampling from a broad range of tissue types, taxa, and localities. Recent advancements in long-read and long-range genome sequencing have made it possible to produce high-quality chromosome-level genome assemblies for almost any organism. However, adequate tissue preservation for the requisite ultra-high molecular weight DNA (uHMW DNA) remains a major challenge. Here we present a comparative study of preservation methods for field and laboratory tissue sampling, across vertebrate classes and different tissue types.

resultsWe find that storage temperature was the strongest predictor of uHMW fragment lengths. While immediate flash-freezing remains the sample preservation gold standard, samples preserved in 95% EtOH or 20-25% DMSO-EDTA showed little fragment length degradation when stored at 4°C for 6 hours. Samples in 95% EtOH or 20-25% DMSO-EDTA kept at 4°C for 1 week after dissection still yielded adequate amounts of uHMW DNA for most applications. Tissue type was a significant predictor of total DNA yield but not fragment length. Preservation solution had a smaller but significant influence on both fragment length and DNA yield.

conclusionWe provide sample preservation guidelines that ensure sufficient DNA integrity and amount required for use with long-read and long-range sequencing technologies across vertebrates. Our best practices generated the uHMW DNA needed for the high-quality reference genomes for phase 1 of the Vertebrate Genomes Project, whose ultimate mission is to generate chromosome-level reference genome assemblies of all ∼70,000 extant vertebrate species.

Indexed as

Dimethyl SulfoxideAnimalsDNAEdetic AcidHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMolecular WeightSequence Analysis, DNADimethyl SulfoxideDNAEdetic Acidgenome assemblyHMW DNA extractionlong-read sequencingtissue preservation

Identifiers

PMID35946988
PMCPMC9364683
OpenAlexW4291283000

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.