ArticleJournal of phycology2024
A cry for kelp: Evidence for polyphenolic inhibition of Oxford Nanopore sequencing of brown algae.
Article in Journal of phycology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative comparison of fungal genome assembly strategies using short and long reads from simulated and empirical sequencing data.Microbial genomics · 2026Article
- Demography and Localized Reservoirs of Diversity Underlie Global Divergence in the Giant Kelp Macrocystis pyrifera.Molecular ecology · 2026Article
- Article
- Efficient recovery and DNA extraction for algae-associated microbial communities.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- A cry for kelp: Evidence for polyphenolic inhibition of Oxford Nanopore sequencing of brown algae.Journal of phycology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genomic resources have yielded unprecedented insights into ecological and evolutionary processes, not to mention their importance in economic and conservation management of specific organisms. However, the field of macroalgal genomics is hampered by difficulties in the isolation of suitable DNA. Even when DNA that appears high quality by standard metrics has been isolated, such samples may not perform well during the sequencing process. We here have compared Oxford Nanopore long-read sequencing results for three species of macroalgae to those of nonmacroalgal species and determined that when using macroalgal samples, sequencing activity declined rapidly, resulting in reduced sequencing yield. Chemical analysis of macroalgal DNA that would be considered suitable for sequencing revealed that DNA derived from dried macroalgae was enriched for polyphenol-DNA adducts (DNA with large polyphenols chemically attached to it), which may have led to sequencing inhibition. Of note, we observed the strongest evidence of sequencing inhibition and reduced sequence output when using samples dried using silica gel-suggesting that such storage approaches may not be appropriate for samples destined for Oxford Nanopore sequencing. Our findings have wide-ranging implications for the generation of genomic resources from macroalgae and suggest a need to develop new storage methods that are more amenable to Oxford Nanopore sequencing or to use fresh flash-frozen tissue wherever possible for genome sequencing.
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.