Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38517905›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

High-throughput sequencing of insect specimens with sub-optimal DNA preservation using a practical, plate-based Illumina-compatible Tn5 transposase library preparation method.

Lauren Cobb, Erik de Muinck, Spyros Kollias, Morten Skage, Gregor D Gilfillan, Markus A K Sydenham, Shuo-Wang Qiao, Bastiaan Star

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lauren CobbCentre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0009-0000-9416-8098
Erik de MuinckCentre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Spyros KolliasCentre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Morten SkageCentre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Gregor D GilfillanDepartment of Medical Genetics, Oslo University Hospital Ullevål and University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-8116-0134
Markus A K SydenhamNorwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Oslo, Norway.
Shuo-Wang QiaoDepartment of Immunology, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-0935-8397
Bastiaan StarCentre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
University of Oslo · NONorwegian Institute for Nature Research · NOOslo University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Entomological sampling and storage conditions often prioritise efficiency, practicality and conservation of morphological characteristics, and may therefore be suboptimal for DNA preservation. This practice can impact downstream molecular applications, such as the generation of high-throughput genomic libraries, which often requires substantial DNA input amounts. Here, we use a practical Tn5 transposase tagmentation-based library preparation method optimised for 96-well plates and low yield DNA extracts from insect legs that were stored under sub-optimal conditions for DNA preservation. The samples were kept in field vehicles for extended periods of time, before long-term storage in ethanol in the freezer, or dry at room temperature. By reducing DNA input to 6ng, more samples with sub-optimal DNA yields could be processed. We matched this low DNA input with a 6-fold dilution of a commercially available tagmentation enzyme, significantly reducing library preparation costs. Costs and workload were further suppressed by direct post-amplification pooling of individual libraries. We generated medium coverage (>3-fold) genomes for 88 out of 90 specimens, with an average of approximately 10-fold coverage. While samples stored in ethanol yielded significantly less DNA compared to those which were stored dry, these samples had superior sequencing statistics, with longer sequencing reads and higher rates of endogenous DNA. Furthermore, we find that the efficiency of tagmentation-based library preparation can be improved by a thorough post-amplification bead clean-up which selects against both short and large DNA fragments. By opening opportunities for the use of sub-optimally preserved, low yield DNA extracts, we broaden the scope of whole genome studies of insect specimens. We therefore expect these results and this protocol to be valuable for a range of applications in the field of entomology.

Indexed as

DNAHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingTransposasesEthanolGene LibrarySequence Analysis, DNADNAEthanolTn5 transposaseTransposases

Identifiers

PMID38517905
PMCPMC10959394
OpenAlexW4393079701

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.