Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40719338›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology resources2025

Effects of Vacuum-Heat-Assisted Sample Desiccation on Microbiome Surveys.

Stilianos Louca, Claire E Mullin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular ecology resources, 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

2 authors.

Stilianos LoucaDepartment of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9216-5619
Claire E MullinDepartment of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA.

Funding

US National Science Foundation 2243038
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sample preservation in the field and during transport can be a logistical challenge for microbiome surveys, particularly in remote areas. Sample desiccation eliminates the need for complicated cold chains and dangerous preservatives. However, the effects of desiccation on modern microbiome workflows such as gene-centric metagenomic profiling and metagenome-assembled genome (MAG) binning, remain poorly understood. In addition, most common desiccation tools such as lyophilisation cannot easily be deployed in the field. Here, we describe a proof-of-principle sample desiccator using vacuum and heat, specifically built for deployment in the field and exhibiting low power consumption and cost. We then test the effects of vacuum-heat-assisted sample desiccation followed by storage at room temperature, in comparison to conventional freezing, on multiple soil and animal faecal samples, via metagenomic and 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing. We consider multiple metrics related to the success of DNA extraction, sequencing, contig assembly, OTU clustering, gene annotation and MAG construction, as well as effects on inferred microbial community composition. We find that the impact of drying on considered success metrics was almost always either minor, non-significant or positive. For a subset of source materials we observed moderate but statistically significant differences in terms of inferred microbial taxonomic and genetic composition. We conclude that vacuum- and heat-assisted desiccation can be a useful, practical and cost-effective tool for microbiome field surveys, when a high consistency with frozen samples is not required.

Indexed as

DesiccationMicrobiotaSpecimen HandlingAnimalsFecesHot TemperatureMetagenomicsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSoil MicrobiologyVacuumRNA, Ribosomal, 16Smetabarcodingmetagenome‐assembled genomesmicrobiomesample desiccation

Identifiers

PMID40719338
PMCPMC12415838

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.