Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39267688›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2024

Optimising recovery of DNA from minimally invasive sampling methods: Efficacy of buccal swabs, preservation strategy and DNA extraction approaches for amphibian studies.

R Martin, K E Mullin, N F D White, N Grimason, R Jehle, J W Wilkinson, P Orozco-terWengel, A A Cunningham, S T Maddock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

R MartinFaculty of Science and Engineering, School of Life Sciences University of Wolverhampton Wolverhampton UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5800-5910
K E MullinCardiff School of Biosciences Cardiff UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7816-3083
N F D WhiteCardiff School of Biosciences Cardiff UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7110-7874
N GrimasonFaculty of Science and Engineering, School of Life Sciences University of Wolverhampton Wolverhampton UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-6138-3735
R JehleSchool of Science, Engineering and Environment University of Salford Salford UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0545-5664
J W WilkinsonAmphibian and Reptile Conservation Bournemouth UK.
P Orozco-terWengelCardiff School of Biosciences Cardiff UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7951-4148
A A CunninghamInstitute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London London UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3543-6504
S T MaddockFaculty of Science and Engineering, School of Life Sciences University of Wolverhampton Wolverhampton UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5455-6990

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies in evolution, ecology and conservation are increasingly based on genetic and genomic data. With increased focus on molecular approaches, ethical concerns about destructive or more invasive techniques need to be considered, with a push for minimally invasive sampling to be optimised. Buccal swabs have been increasingly used to collect DNA in a number of taxa, including amphibians. However, DNA yield and purity from swabs are often low, limiting its use. In this study, we compare different types of swabs, preservation method and storage, and DNA extraction techniques in three case studies to assess the optimal approach for recovering DNA in anurans. Out of the five different types of swabs that we tested, Isohelix MS-02 and Rapidry swabs generated higher DNA yields than other swabs. When comparing storage buffers, ethanol is a better preservative than a non-alcoholic alternative. Dried samples resulted in similar or better final DNA yields compared to ethanol-fixed samples if kept cool. DNA extraction via a Qiagen™ DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit and McHale's salting-out extraction method resulted in similar DNA yields but the Qiagen™ kit extracts contained less contamination. We also found that samples have better DNA recovery if they are frozen as soon as possible after collection. We provide recommendations for sample collection and extraction under different conditions, including budgetary considerations, size of individual animal sampled, access to cold storage facilities and DNA extraction methodology. Maximising efficacy of all of these factors for better DNA recovery will allow buccal swabs to be used for genetic and genomic studies in a range of vertebrates.

Indexed as

anuransDNA recoverygenetic sampling techniquesgenomics

Identifiers

PMID39267688
PMCPMC11392594

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.