ArticlePloS one2022
A comparison of drying methods on the quality for bryophyte molecular specimens collected in the field.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Lipid Changes During the Drying Process ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- DBALM: A novel method for identifying ornamental flowering plants based on DNA barcodes-leaf morphology.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A major challenge in extracting high-quality DNA from bryophytes is the treatment of bryophyte material in the field. The existing and commonly used treatment methods in the field have several shortcomings. Natural drying methods can lead to DNA breaks. In addition, it is highly cumbersome to carry large quantities of silica gel in the field due to its weight and high risk of contamination among samples. In this study, we explored more convenient drying methods to treat bryophyte specimens and promote more efficient DNA recovery. The quantity and quality of genomic DNA extracted from every bryophyte species using different drying methods, including hot-air drying methods (150°C, 80°C, and 40°C), natural drying method, and silica gel drying method, were measured. Spectrophotometry, electrophoresis, and PCR amplification were performed to assess the effects of different drying methods. The results of total DNA purity, total DNA concentration, PCR success, and OD 260/230 ratios suggested that the hot-air drying (40-80°C) was the best method. The morphological comparison revealed that hot-air drying at 40°C and 80°C exerted no significant adverse effects on plant morphology and taxonomic studies. Thus, this method prevents rapid DNA degradation and silica gel pollution and saves the workforce from carrying large amounts of silica gel to the field. Several inexpensive devices, such as portable hairdryers, fan heaters, and electric blankets, are available that can be easily carried to the field for drying molecular specimens.
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.