ArticleEnvironmental microbiome2026
Effects of heat-assisted sample desiccation on microbiome surveys.
Article in Environmental microbiome, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sample preservation remains a challenge in microbiome surveys, particularly in remote areas. Drying samples eliminates the need for cold chains and preservatives, but sophisticated desiccation tools such as lyophilization are impractical in the field. Further, the effects of sample drying on modern analyses, such as gene-centric metagenomics and metagenome-assembled genome (MAG) recovery, remain poorly understood. Here we explore heat-assisted sample desiccation followed by storage at room temperature as a cost-effective and practical solution in the field. We assess its effects relative to freezing on typical metagenomic and 16 S rRNA amplicon sequence analyses of bacterial and archaeal communities, using 60 samples from 6 different source materials (soils from 3 locations, feces from 3 animals). We consider multiple metrics related to the success of DNA extraction, sequencing, contig assembly, OTU clustering, gene annotation and MAG recovery, as well as impacts on inferred microbial community composition. We find that, while desiccation had a significant negative impact on multiple metrics related to DNA extraction success, its impacts on downstream metrics such as OTU richness, Shannon diversity, gene annotation and MAG recovery were more nuanced and often insignificant. Further, while the preservation method had a significant influence on the inferred microbial community composition, samples from different source materials (e.g., soils from different locations, or feces from different individuals) remained clearly distinguishable. We conclude that heat-assisted desiccation can be a viable sample preservation method for microbiome studies, when a high consistency with frozen samples is not a requirement.
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.