ArticleScientific reports2025
Validation of two swabbing methods to sample DNA for genotyping Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus).
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In fisheries, genetic based assignment of individuals to their population of origin can benefit efforts aimed at monitoring and managing stocks. Assignment combined with knowledge of the migration history of individuals can provide powerful insights into mechanisms of genetic mixing, for which refined sampling methods are required to minimise any impacts. In this study we tested two minimally invasive swabbing techniques for sampling DNA when attaching electronic satellite tags to Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) for migration studies. First, DNA was sampled by skin swabbing (hereafter skin swabs) individuals from which there were corresponding fin clip samples. Second, swabs were taken from the applicator poles used to attach electronic tags (hereafter pole swabs). Quantification of DNA from the different sources revealed decreasing yields moving from fin clips, to skin swabs, to pole swabs. The utility of the DNA obtained by both swabbing methods for individual genotyping was then assessed by sequencing of the mtDNA control region and genotyping of six microsatellite loci. In all cases successful genotyping was achieved. For mtDNA an 868 bp fragment was successfully amplified in all samples with 775 bp aligned across individuals revealing 26 haplotypes (overall haplotype diversity = 0.987). All six microsatellites were successfully amplified including a largest allele size of 291 bp. mtDNA and microsatellite genotypes for the skin swabs matched with the corresponding fin clip samples. Although no tissue replicates were available for the pole swab samples the genotypes obtained were unambiguous, consistent across repeated PCRs, and reported no evidence of PCR issues such as large allele drop out. Overall, the genetic data suggested high variability among individuals sampled, comparable to levels of genetic diversity seen within the species' Atlantic range. The study demonstrates that non-invasive sampling can be used to obtain DNA for population assignment studies and that valuable material can be sampled from tagging equipment.
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.