Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39435595›Full record

ArticleJournal of phycology2024

A cry for kelp: Evidence for polyphenolic inhibition of Oxford Nanopore sequencing of brown algae.

William S Pearman, Vanessa Arranz, Jose I Carvajal, Annabel Whibley, Yusmiati Liau, Katherine Johnson, Rachel Gray, Jackson M Treece, Neil J Gemmell, Libby Liggins and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

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

13 authors.

William S PearmanDepartment of Marine Science, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-7265-8499
Vanessa ArranzDepartament de Biologia Evolutiva, Ecologia i Ciències Ambientals, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Jose I CarvajalThe New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited, Auckland, New Zealand.
Annabel WhibleyGrapevine Improvement, Bragato Research Institute, Lincoln, New Zealand.
Yusmiati LiauGrapevine Improvement, Bragato Research Institute, Lincoln, New Zealand.
Katherine JohnsonGenomics Core Facility, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Rachel GraySchool of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Jackson M TreeceDepartment of Anatomy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Neil J GemmellDepartment of Anatomy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Libby LigginsSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland - City Campus, Auckland, New Zealand.
Ceridwen I FraserDepartment of Marine Science, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Evelyn L JensenSchool of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Nicholas J GreenDepartment of Chemistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Nanopore SequencingPhaeophyceaePolyphenolsDNA, AlgalKelpSequence Analysis, DNADNA, AlgalPolyphenolsDNA extractiongenomemacroalgaenanoporepolyphenolssequencing

Identifiers

PMID39435595
PMCPMC11670283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.