ArticlePloS one2024
Hot alkaline lysis gDNA extraction from formalin-fixed archival tissues.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the Molecular Potential and Interpretability of DNA in Historical Spirit Collection Media.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- From Permits to Samples: Addressing Key Challenges for High-Quality Reference Genome Generation in Europe.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Review
- Apristurus iterum, a new shark discovered based on egg case morphology and sequence data obtained from a formalin-fixed specimen.Journal of fish biology · 2025Article
- Detection of AcrAB efflux pump mediated ciprofloxacin resistance in Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae in Nepal.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Reframing Formalin: A Molecular Opportunity Enabling Historical Epigenomics and Retrospective Gene Expression Studies.Molecular ecology resources · 2025Review
- Article
- Century-old chromatin architecture revealed in formalin-fixed vertebrates.Nature communications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Formalin fixation of natural history specimens and histopathological material has historically been viewed as an impediment to successful genomic analysis. However, the development of extraction methods specifically tailored to contend with heavily crosslinked archival tissues, re-contextualises millions of previously overlooked specimens as viable molecular assets. Here, we present an easy-to-follow protocol for screening archival wet specimens for molecular viability and subsequent genomic DNA extraction suitable for sequencing. The protocol begins with non-destructive assessment of specimen degradation and preservation media conditions to allow both museum curators and researchers to select specimens most likely to yield an acceptable proportion (20-60%) of mappable endogenous DNA during short-read DNA sequencing. The extraction protocol uses hot alkaline lysis in buffer (0.1M NaOH, 1% SDS, pH 13) to simultaneously lyse and de-crosslink the tissue. To maximise DNA recovery, phenol:chloroform extraction is coupled with a small-fragment optimised SPRI bead clean up. Applied to well-preserved archival tissues, the protocol can yield 1-2 μg DNA per 50 mg of tissue with mean fragment sizes typically ranging from 50-150 bp, which is suitable to recover genomic DNA sufficient to reconstruct complete mitochondrial genomes and achieve up to 25X nuclear genome coverage. We provide guidance for read mapping to a reference genome and discuss the limitations of relying on small fragments for SNP genotyping and de novo genome assembly. This protocol opens the door to broader-scale genetic and phylogenetic analysis of historical specimens, contributing to a deeper understanding of evolutionary trends and adaptation in response to changing environments.
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.