Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41790829›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Dye-based qPCR assays for the separate quantification of total bacterial, fungal, arthropod, and plant DNA.

Teresa M Tiedge, Kim R Love, Kelly A Meiklejohn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Teresa M TiedgeDepartment of Population Health and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-0575-8712
Kim R LoveK. R. Love Quantitative Consulting and Collaboration, Athens, Georgia, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5912-9525
Kelly A MeiklejohnDepartment of Population Health and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6125-2963

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Characterization of bacterial, fungal, arthropod, and plant communities from bulk environmental samples can enhance our understanding of the biodiversity on Earth and aid in biomonitoring of various biomes. An important step in any molecular biology protocol is DNA quantification. While fast methods that determine the total amount of DNA in a sample are widely available, quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) is often preferred as it permits quantification of specific DNA molecules of interest. Currently, commercial qPCR assays are only available to quantify total bacterial and fungal DNA; limited studies describe the use of qPCR to quantify total arthropod and plant DNA. Here we describe the rigorous validation of four dye-based qPCR assays to separately quantify total bacterial, fungal, arthropod, and plant DNA following the MIQE guidelines. Validation experiments included primer annealing, primer concentration, specificity (in vitro and in silico), sensitivity, and reproducibility. Standard curves were created using synthetic double stranded DNA (gBlocks™) that were designed to quantify the DNA molecules of interest. Melt curve temperatures were identified for each taxon for specificity confirmation. These four assays were found to be specific, sensitive, and reproducible and can quantify DNA from single source specimens and mixed DNA samples, such as environmental DNA.

Indexed as

ArthropodsDNA, BacterialDNA, FungalDNA, PlantFungiPolymerase Chain ReactionReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionAnimalsReproducibility of ResultsDNA, BacterialDNA, FungalDNA, Plant

Identifiers

PMID41790829
PMCPMC12965568

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.