Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37372377›Full record

ArticleGenes2023

A Comparison of Non-Destructive Visceral Swab and Tissue Biopsy Sampling Methods for Genotyping-by-Sequencing in the Freshwater Mussel

Matthew Harrison, V Alex Sotola, Alexander Zalmat, Kyle T Sullivan, Bradley M Littrell, Timothy H Bonner, Noland H Martin

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Genes, 2023. 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
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Matthew HarrisonDepartment of Biology, Texas State University, 601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA.
V Alex SotolaBiology Department, State University of New York at Oneonta, 108 Ravine Parkway, Oneonta, NY 13820, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9304-1017
Alexander ZalmatDepartment of Biology, Texas State University, 601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA.
Kyle T SullivanBIO-WEST, Inc., 1405 United Drive, Suite 111, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA.
Bradley M LittrellBIO-WEST, Inc., 1405 United Drive, Suite 111, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA.
Timothy H BonnerDepartment of Biology, Texas State University, 601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA.
Noland H MartinDepartment of Biology, Texas State University, 601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA.
Texas State University · USSUNY Oneonta · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Limiting harm to organisms caused by genetic sampling is an important consideration for rare species, and a number of non-destructive sampling techniques have been developed to address this issue in freshwater mussels. Two methods, visceral swabbing and tissue biopsies, have proven to be effective for DNA sampling, though it is unclear as to which method is preferable for genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS). Tissue biopsies may cause undue stress and damage to organisms, while visceral swabbing potentially reduces the chance of such harm. Our study compared the efficacy of these two DNA sampling methods for generating GBS data for the unionid freshwater mussel, the Texas pigtoe (

Indexed as

BivalviaUnionidaeAnimalsBiopsyDNAGenotypeGenotyping TechniquesDNADNA collection methodsgenomic coveragenon-destructive DNA samplingpopulation genetic structuresequencing depthTexas pigtoe

Identifiers

PMID37372377
PMCPMC10298480
OpenAlexW4381572520

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.