4.3 Article

DNA preservation: a test of commonly used preservatives for insects

期刊

INVERTEBRATE SYSTEMATICS
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 81-86

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/IS12067

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Zoology at the Field Museum of Natural History, Marshall Field Fund
  2. Negaunee Foundation
  3. The Grainger Foundation
  4. National Science Foundation (NSF) [1050243]
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences
  6. Division Of Environmental Biology [1050243] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the impact of collection and storage preservatives is important for all specimen-based research, ranging from morphological studies to genetic- and genomic-based research. We evaluated the effectiveness of four commonly used preservatives for their ability to preserve insect DNA for several ant species as well as the DNA from host-associated microbes of one ant species. We made replicated collections of ant specimens of different sizes and from three different environmental climates into four different preservatives (95% ethanol, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), propylene glycol and RNAlater), isolated DNA across two different time periods and performed PCR on all DNA extracts (n = 180 samples + 10 controls). Although ethanol returned the best overall results for DNA yield and PCR success, our analyses did not show a significant difference between specimens preserved in ethanol or propylene glycol on the timescales we investigated. We found that average DNA yield was significantly higher when specimens were originally collected in ethanol instead of DMSO, propylene glycol, or RNAlater (TM) (Applied Biosystems/Ambion). PCR results for both the insect and endosymbiotic bacteria showed a significant advantage for preserving ants in ethanol or propylene glycol over DMSO or RNAlater for room temperature storage. Our findings suggest that collection of insect specimens into ethanol is the preferred method for preserving host and

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据