Cargando…
A comparison of freezer‐stored DNA and herbarium tissue samples for chloroplast assembly and genome skimming
PREMISE: The use of DNA from herbarium specimens is an increasingly important source for evolutionary studies in plant biology, particularly in cases where species are rare or difficult to obtain. Here we compare the utility of DNA from herbarium tissues to their freezer‐stored DNA counterparts via...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10278930/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37342160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aps3.11527 |
_version_ | 1785060570873987072 |
---|---|
author | McAssey, Edward V. Downs, Cassidy Yorkston, Mitsuko Morden, Clifford Heyduk, Karolina |
author_facet | McAssey, Edward V. Downs, Cassidy Yorkston, Mitsuko Morden, Clifford Heyduk, Karolina |
author_sort | McAssey, Edward V. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PREMISE: The use of DNA from herbarium specimens is an increasingly important source for evolutionary studies in plant biology, particularly in cases where species are rare or difficult to obtain. Here we compare the utility of DNA from herbarium tissues to their freezer‐stored DNA counterparts via the Hawaiian Plant DNA Library. METHODS: Plants collected for the Hawaiian Plant DNA Library were simultaneously accessioned as herbarium specimens at the time of collection, from 1994–2019. Paired samples were sequenced using short‐read sequencing and assessed for chloroplast assembly and nuclear gene recovery. RESULTS: Herbarium specimen–derived DNA was statistically more fragmented than freezer‐stored DNA derived from fresh tissue, leading to poorer chloroplast assembly and overall lower coverage. The number of nuclear targets recovered varied mostly by total sequencing reads per library and age of specimen, but not by storage method (herbarium or long‐term freezer). Although there was evidence of DNA damage in the samples, there was no evidence that it was related to the length of time in storage, whether frozen or as herbarium specimens. DISCUSSION: DNA extracted from herbarium tissues will continue to be invaluable, despite being highly fragmented and degraded. Rare floras would benefit from both traditional herbarium storage methods and extracted DNA freezer banks. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10278930 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-102789302023-06-20 A comparison of freezer‐stored DNA and herbarium tissue samples for chloroplast assembly and genome skimming McAssey, Edward V. Downs, Cassidy Yorkston, Mitsuko Morden, Clifford Heyduk, Karolina Appl Plant Sci Application Articles PREMISE: The use of DNA from herbarium specimens is an increasingly important source for evolutionary studies in plant biology, particularly in cases where species are rare or difficult to obtain. Here we compare the utility of DNA from herbarium tissues to their freezer‐stored DNA counterparts via the Hawaiian Plant DNA Library. METHODS: Plants collected for the Hawaiian Plant DNA Library were simultaneously accessioned as herbarium specimens at the time of collection, from 1994–2019. Paired samples were sequenced using short‐read sequencing and assessed for chloroplast assembly and nuclear gene recovery. RESULTS: Herbarium specimen–derived DNA was statistically more fragmented than freezer‐stored DNA derived from fresh tissue, leading to poorer chloroplast assembly and overall lower coverage. The number of nuclear targets recovered varied mostly by total sequencing reads per library and age of specimen, but not by storage method (herbarium or long‐term freezer). Although there was evidence of DNA damage in the samples, there was no evidence that it was related to the length of time in storage, whether frozen or as herbarium specimens. DISCUSSION: DNA extracted from herbarium tissues will continue to be invaluable, despite being highly fragmented and degraded. Rare floras would benefit from both traditional herbarium storage methods and extracted DNA freezer banks. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-06-05 /pmc/articles/PMC10278930/ /pubmed/37342160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aps3.11527 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Applications in Plant Sciences published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Botanical Society of America. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Application Articles McAssey, Edward V. Downs, Cassidy Yorkston, Mitsuko Morden, Clifford Heyduk, Karolina A comparison of freezer‐stored DNA and herbarium tissue samples for chloroplast assembly and genome skimming |
title | A comparison of freezer‐stored DNA and herbarium tissue samples for chloroplast assembly and genome skimming |
title_full | A comparison of freezer‐stored DNA and herbarium tissue samples for chloroplast assembly and genome skimming |
title_fullStr | A comparison of freezer‐stored DNA and herbarium tissue samples for chloroplast assembly and genome skimming |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of freezer‐stored DNA and herbarium tissue samples for chloroplast assembly and genome skimming |
title_short | A comparison of freezer‐stored DNA and herbarium tissue samples for chloroplast assembly and genome skimming |
title_sort | comparison of freezer‐stored dna and herbarium tissue samples for chloroplast assembly and genome skimming |
topic | Application Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10278930/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37342160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aps3.11527 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mcasseyedwardv acomparisonoffreezerstoreddnaandherbariumtissuesamplesforchloroplastassemblyandgenomeskimming AT downscassidy acomparisonoffreezerstoreddnaandherbariumtissuesamplesforchloroplastassemblyandgenomeskimming AT yorkstonmitsuko acomparisonoffreezerstoreddnaandherbariumtissuesamplesforchloroplastassemblyandgenomeskimming AT mordenclifford acomparisonoffreezerstoreddnaandherbariumtissuesamplesforchloroplastassemblyandgenomeskimming AT heydukkarolina acomparisonoffreezerstoreddnaandherbariumtissuesamplesforchloroplastassemblyandgenomeskimming AT mcasseyedwardv comparisonoffreezerstoreddnaandherbariumtissuesamplesforchloroplastassemblyandgenomeskimming AT downscassidy comparisonoffreezerstoreddnaandherbariumtissuesamplesforchloroplastassemblyandgenomeskimming AT yorkstonmitsuko comparisonoffreezerstoreddnaandherbariumtissuesamplesforchloroplastassemblyandgenomeskimming AT mordenclifford comparisonoffreezerstoreddnaandherbariumtissuesamplesforchloroplastassemblyandgenomeskimming AT heydukkarolina comparisonoffreezerstoreddnaandherbariumtissuesamplesforchloroplastassemblyandgenomeskimming |