Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39972011›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Facilitating high throughput collections-based genomics: a comparison of DNA extraction and library building methods.

William A Marsh, Andie Hall, Ian Barnes, Ben Price

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

William A MarshNatural History Museum, Cromwell Road, South Kensington, SW7 5BD, London, UK. w.marsh@nhm.ac.uk.
Andie HallNatural History Museum, Cromwell Road, South Kensington, SW7 5BD, London, UK.
Ian BarnesNatural History Museum, Cromwell Road, South Kensington, SW7 5BD, London, UK.
Ben PriceNatural History Museum, Cromwell Road, South Kensington, SW7 5BD, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While DNA barcoding methods are an increasingly important tool in biological conservation, the resource requirements of constructing reference libraries frequently reduce their efficacy. One efficient way of sourcing taxonomically validated DNA for reference libraries is to use museum collections. However, DNA degradation intrinsic to historical museum specimens can, if not addressed in the wet lab, lead to low quality data generation and severely limit scientific output. Several DNA extraction and library build methods that are designed to work with degraded DNA have been developed, although the ability to implement these methods at scale and at low cost has yet to be formally addressed. Here, the performance of widely used DNA extraction and library build methods are compared using museum specimens. We find that while our selected DNA extraction methods do not significantly differ in DNA yield, the Santa Cruz Reaction (SCR) library build method is not only the most effective at retrieving degraded DNA from museum specimens but also easily implemented at high throughput for low cost. Results highlight the importance of lab protocol on data yield. An optimised "sample to sequencing" high-throughput protocol which incorporates SCR is included to allow for easy uptake by the wider scientific community.

Indexed as

DNADNA Barcoding, TaxonomicGene LibraryGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMuseumsDNABiodiversityHistorical DNAMuseomicsMuseum collections

Identifiers

PMID39972011
PMCPMC11839992

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.