ArticlePloS one2025
Making the best of a bad sample: Comparison of DNA extraction and quantification methods using sub-optimally stored Ixodes ricinus ticks.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of four DNA extraction methods on a collection of 200 sub-optimally stored Ixodes ricinus ticks from Southeastern Norway (177 nymphs, 11 males and 12 females). The methods were ammoniium hydroxide hydrolysis of homogenised or intact ticks and two commercial silica membrane-based kits, the QIAGEN Blood and Tissue kit and the QIAGEN Mini kit. DNA was evaluated by spectrophotometry, fluorometry, agarose gel electrophoresis and quantitative PCR. The second aim was to compare methods of evaluating the yield and purity. All four extraction methods provided amplifiable DNA, but the yield was variable (median 151 ng, range 0.13 to 4500 ng). DNA yields were not significantly different across the methods. Nine of 200 samples were inhibitory, all of which were ammonium hydroxide extracts of homogenised ticks. DNA purity, as judged by A260/280 ratios, was low; it was highest (mean = 1.63) for the Qiagen Blood and Tissue kit with the other methods showing values averaging 1.44. DNA yield measurements using qPCR, fluorometry (Qubit), drop spectrophotometry (NanoDrop) and gel electrophoresis (E-gels) correlated poorly, r ranging from <0 to 0.9 with no systematic pattern (average 0.4), probably reflecting the effects of low purity, low concentrations and differing amounts of single- and double-stranded DNA. Neoehrlichia mikurensis and Borrelia burgdorferi s.l. were detected in 5 and 13% of samples, respectively by qPCR. Our findings indicate that for the purposes of qPCR analysis, ammoniium hydroxide hydrolysis of intact ticks, a very cheap and simple method is as good as any of the other methods tested.
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.