Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38720311›Full record

ArticlePlant methods2024

Assessing the effect of sample storage time on viral detection using a rapid and cost-effective CTAB-based extraction method.

Deogratius Mark, Fred Tairo, Joseph Ndunguru, Elisiana Kweka, Maliha Saggaf, Hilda Bachwenkizi, Evangelista Chiunga, James Leonard Lusana, Geofrey Sikazwe, Reuben Maghembe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Double defense: enhancing tobacco with cyanobacterial and thaumatin genes.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Challenges toInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    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

10 authors.

Deogratius MarkTanzania Agricultural Research Institute, 6226, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania. deomarkd@yahoo.com.
Fred TairoTanzania Agricultural Research Institute, 6226, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania.
Joseph NdunguruTanzania Agricultural Research Institute, 6226, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania.
Elisiana KwekaTanzania Agricultural Research Institute, 6226, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania.
Maliha SaggafTanzania Agricultural Research Institute, 6226, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania.
Hilda BachwenkiziTanzania Agricultural Research Institute, 6226, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania.
Evangelista ChiungaTanzania Agricultural Research Institute, 6226, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania.
James Leonard LusanaSchool of Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Technology, University of Dar es Salaam, 60091, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Geofrey SikazweMkwawa University College of Education, University of Dar es Salaam, 2513, Iringa, Tanzania.
Reuben MaghembeBiological and Marine Sciences Unit, Faculty of Natural and Applied Sciences, Marian University College, 47, Bagamoyo, Tanzania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCassava leaf samples degrade quickly during storage and transportation from distant areas. Proper sampling and efficient, low-cost storage methods are critical for obtaining sufficient quality DNA and RNA for plant virus epidemiology and improving disease control understanding. This is useful when samples are collected from remote areas far from a laboratory or in developing countries where money and materials for virus diagnostics are scarce.

resultsThe effect of sample storage duration on nucleic acid (N.A.) quality on virus detection was investigated in this study. A simple, rapid, and cost-effective CTAB-based approach (M3) for single N.A. extraction was optimized and tested alongside two existing CTAB-based methods (M1 and M2) for N.A. extraction from fresh and herbarium cassava leaves stored for; 1, 8, 26, and 56 months. The amount and quality of DNA and RNA were determined using Nanodrop 2000 c U.V.-vis Spectrophotometer and agarose gel electrophoreses. The sample degradation rate was estimated using a simple mathematical model in Matlab computational software. The results show no significant difference in mean DNA concentration between M1 and M2 but a significant difference between M3 and the other two methods at p < 0.005. The mean DNA concentration extracted using M3 was higher for 1 and 8 months of leave storage. M3 and M2 produced high concentrations at 26 and 56 months of leave storage. Using a developed scale for quality score, M3 and M2 produced high-quality DNA from fresh samples. All methods produced poor-quality DNA and RNA at 8 and 26 months of leave storage and no visual bands at the age of 56 months. Statistically, there was a significant difference in the mean DNA quality between M1 and M2, but there was no significant difference between M3 and the other two methods at p < 0.005. However, Cassava brown streak virus (CBSV) and Ugandan cassava brown streak virus (UCBSV) were readily detected by RT-PCR from RNA isolated using M3. The quality of DNA declined per storage time at 0.0493 and 0.0521/month, while RNA was 0.0678 and 0.0744/month. Compared to the existing two methods, modified CTAB extracted enough high-quality N.A. in one-third the time of the existing two methods.

conclusionOur method provides cost-effective, quick, and simple processing of fresh and dry samples, which will quicken and guide the decision on when and what type of sample to process for plant disease management and surveillance actions.

Indexed as

CTAB-methodDNA/RNA degradationDNA/RNA qualityStorage time

Identifiers

PMID38720311
PMCPMC11080235

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.