ArticleOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2024
Comparison of DNA quantity and quality from fecal samples of mammals transported in ethanol or lysis buffer.
Article in One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relationship of the Landscape Configuration with the Gut Parasites and Fungi Diversity in Farm Animals Associated with Conservation Areas in Colombia: Epidemiological Risk to Wildlife.Acta parasitologica · 2025Article
- Rapid Detection of Animal-Derived Components in Plant-Based Meat Alternatives Using Recombinase Polymerase Amplification.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- First molecular evidence ofVeterinary world · 2025Article
- Molecular characterization ofParasitology · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Using fecal microbial community profiles through sequencing approaches helps to unravel the intimate interplay between health, wellness, and diet in wild animals with their environment. Ensuring the proper preservation of fecal samples before processing is crucial to ensure reliable results. In this study, we evaluated the efficiency of two different preservation methods, considering the following criteria: DNA yield, quality and integrity, and microbial community structure based on Oxford Nanopore amplicon sequencing of the V3-V4 region of bacterial 16S rRNA and protozoa 18S rRNA genes. Eighteen matched pairs of mammalian fecal samples were collected and transported in 99.8% ethanol and lysis buffer; processing occurred between 55 and 461 days post-collection. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to analyze quantitative measurements for paired samples. The A260/280 ratio, a measure of nucleic acid purity, was assessed descriptively for each media, and the Bartlett test evaluated dispersion of this ratio. A Fisher test was performed to compare the number of positive reactions for DNA extraction or PCR amplification of the 16S and 18S rRNA genes between both media. The concentration of total DNA and amplicons, as well as the number of reads obtained in sequencing, was significantly higher in the samples preserved with lysis buffer compared to ethanol, with magnitudes up to three times higher. Electrophoretic analysis of total DNA and amplicons further confirmed superior DNA integrity in lysis buffer preserved samples. The A260/280 values obtained using the lysis buffer were of optimal purity (mean: 1.92) and with little dispersion (SD: 0.27); on the other hand, the ethanol samples also presented an excellent average quality (mean: 1.94), but they were dispersed (SD: 1.10). For molecular studies using mammalian feces, the lysis buffer reagent proved to be a reliable solution for their collection, conservation, and storage.
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.