Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39815330›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2025

Comparison of whole genome sequencing performance from fish swabs and fin clips.

Annabell Macphee, Temitope Opeyemi Oriowo, Nils Sternberg, Madlen Stange

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Annabell MacpheeSchool of Molecular Biosciences, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.
Temitope Opeyemi OriowoLeibniz Institute for the Analysis of Biodiversity Change, Museum Koenig Bonn, Centre for Molecular Biodiversity Research, Bonn, Germany.
Nils SternbergLeibniz Institute for the Analysis of Biodiversity Change, Museum Koenig Bonn, Centre for Molecular Biodiversity Research, Bonn, Germany.
Madlen StangeLeibniz Institute for the Analysis of Biodiversity Change, Museum Koenig Bonn, Centre for Molecular Biodiversity Research, Bonn, Germany. m.stange@leibniz-lib.de.

Funding

Leibniz-Gemeinschaft SAW-J96/2020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveFin clipping is the standard DNA sampling technique for whole genome sequencing (WGS) of small fish. The collection of fin clips requires anaesthesia or even euthanisation of the individual. Swabbing may be a less invasive, non-lethal alternative to fin-clipping. Whether skin and gill swabs are comparable to fin clips in terms of DNA extraction quality and sequence read mapping performance from WGS was tested here on Eurasian minnows (Phoxinus phoxinus).

resultsOf 49 fin clips, all met the DNA concentration threshold of 20 ng/μl, whereas 43 of 88 swabs met this requirement. Preserving swabs in ATL buffer and treatment with Proteinase K during DNA extraction consistently raised skin swab DNA concentrations above the cut-off. All samples passed the A260/A280 absorbance ratio cut-off of 1.3. Ultimately, 93.88% of the fin clips, 30.61% of the skin, and 7.69% of the gill swabs were suitable for sequencing. Mapping performances of all three tissues were comparable in reads passing quality filtering, percentage of reads mapping to the P. phoxinus reference genome, and coverage. Overall, skin swabs treated with Proteinase K during extraction, can match fin clips in WGS performance and represent a viable non-invasive DNA sampling alternative.

Indexed as

Animal FinsCyprinidaeDNASpecimen HandlingWhole Genome SequencingAnimalsGillsSkinDNA3RsDNAFin clipsFishesIlluminaNGSSamplingSwabsWhole-genome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID39815330
PMCPMC11734550

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.