ArticleHeliyon2024
Optimal liquid-based DNA preservation for DNA barcoding of field-collected fungal specimens.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preserving fungal tissue DNA in the field is essential for molecular ecological research, enabling the study of fungal biodiversity and community dynamics. This study systematically compares two liquid-based preservation solutions, RNAlater and DESS, for their effectiveness in maintaining macrofungi DNA integrity during field collection and storage. The research encompasses both controlled experiments and real-world field collections. In the controlled experiments, two fungal species were preserved in RNAlater and DESS at different temperatures and durations. DNA extraction success rates were high, but DNA quality and quantity metrics exhibited variations across samples. However, both preservation solutions demonstrated their viability for preserving fungal DNA, with no significant differences between them. In the field-collected macrofungi experiment, 160 paired fungal specimens were preserved in RNAlater and DESS, respectively. Including a drying process to facilitate tissue lysis for DNA extraction significantly impacted the outcomes. RNAlater showed a higher success rate and better DNA quality and quantity compared to DESS. Statistical analysis, including paired and independent t-tests, confirmed significant differences in DNA quality and quantity between the two preservation methods for field-collected samples. This study evaluates RNAlater and DESS for preserving macrofungi DNA in field conditions. Both methods are effective, but RNAlater is superior when a drying step is included in DNA extraction. Researchers can choose based on their specific needs without compromising DNA integrity. These findings advance fungal molecular ecology and DNA preservation strategies in ecological and environmental studies.
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.