Cargando…
A comparison of drying methods on the quality for bryophyte molecular specimens collected in the field
A major challenge in extracting high-quality DNA from bryophytes is the treatment of bryophyte material in the field. The existing and commonly used treatment methods in the field have several shortcomings. Natural drying methods can lead to DNA breaks. In addition, it is highly cumbersome to carry...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9683613/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36417395 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277778 |
_version_ | 1784835090089508864 |
---|---|
author | Shen, Fengjiao Li, Lin Wang, Dan Wang, Mengzhen Shevock, James R. Zhao, Jiancheng Shi, Shuo |
author_facet | Shen, Fengjiao Li, Lin Wang, Dan Wang, Mengzhen Shevock, James R. Zhao, Jiancheng Shi, Shuo |
author_sort | Shen, Fengjiao |
collection | PubMed |
description | A major challenge in extracting high-quality DNA from bryophytes is the treatment of bryophyte material in the field. The existing and commonly used treatment methods in the field have several shortcomings. Natural drying methods can lead to DNA breaks. In addition, it is highly cumbersome to carry large quantities of silica gel in the field due to its weight and high risk of contamination among samples. In this study, we explored more convenient drying methods to treat bryophyte specimens and promote more efficient DNA recovery. The quantity and quality of genomic DNA extracted from every bryophyte species using different drying methods, including hot-air drying methods (150°C, 80°C, and 40°C), natural drying method, and silica gel drying method, were measured. Spectrophotometry, electrophoresis, and PCR amplification were performed to assess the effects of different drying methods. The results of total DNA purity, total DNA concentration, PCR success, and OD 260/230 ratios suggested that the hot-air drying (40–80°C) was the best method. The morphological comparison revealed that hot-air drying at 40°C and 80°C exerted no significant adverse effects on plant morphology and taxonomic studies. Thus, this method prevents rapid DNA degradation and silica gel pollution and saves the workforce from carrying large amounts of silica gel to the field. Several inexpensive devices, such as portable hairdryers, fan heaters, and electric blankets, are available that can be easily carried to the field for drying molecular specimens. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9683613 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96836132022-11-24 A comparison of drying methods on the quality for bryophyte molecular specimens collected in the field Shen, Fengjiao Li, Lin Wang, Dan Wang, Mengzhen Shevock, James R. Zhao, Jiancheng Shi, Shuo PLoS One Research Article A major challenge in extracting high-quality DNA from bryophytes is the treatment of bryophyte material in the field. The existing and commonly used treatment methods in the field have several shortcomings. Natural drying methods can lead to DNA breaks. In addition, it is highly cumbersome to carry large quantities of silica gel in the field due to its weight and high risk of contamination among samples. In this study, we explored more convenient drying methods to treat bryophyte specimens and promote more efficient DNA recovery. The quantity and quality of genomic DNA extracted from every bryophyte species using different drying methods, including hot-air drying methods (150°C, 80°C, and 40°C), natural drying method, and silica gel drying method, were measured. Spectrophotometry, electrophoresis, and PCR amplification were performed to assess the effects of different drying methods. The results of total DNA purity, total DNA concentration, PCR success, and OD 260/230 ratios suggested that the hot-air drying (40–80°C) was the best method. The morphological comparison revealed that hot-air drying at 40°C and 80°C exerted no significant adverse effects on plant morphology and taxonomic studies. Thus, this method prevents rapid DNA degradation and silica gel pollution and saves the workforce from carrying large amounts of silica gel to the field. Several inexpensive devices, such as portable hairdryers, fan heaters, and electric blankets, are available that can be easily carried to the field for drying molecular specimens. Public Library of Science 2022-11-23 /pmc/articles/PMC9683613/ /pubmed/36417395 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277778 Text en © 2022 Shen et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Shen, Fengjiao Li, Lin Wang, Dan Wang, Mengzhen Shevock, James R. Zhao, Jiancheng Shi, Shuo A comparison of drying methods on the quality for bryophyte molecular specimens collected in the field |
title | A comparison of drying methods on the quality for bryophyte molecular specimens collected in the field |
title_full | A comparison of drying methods on the quality for bryophyte molecular specimens collected in the field |
title_fullStr | A comparison of drying methods on the quality for bryophyte molecular specimens collected in the field |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of drying methods on the quality for bryophyte molecular specimens collected in the field |
title_short | A comparison of drying methods on the quality for bryophyte molecular specimens collected in the field |
title_sort | comparison of drying methods on the quality for bryophyte molecular specimens collected in the field |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9683613/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36417395 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277778 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT shenfengjiao acomparisonofdryingmethodsonthequalityforbryophytemolecularspecimenscollectedinthefield AT lilin acomparisonofdryingmethodsonthequalityforbryophytemolecularspecimenscollectedinthefield AT wangdan acomparisonofdryingmethodsonthequalityforbryophytemolecularspecimenscollectedinthefield AT wangmengzhen acomparisonofdryingmethodsonthequalityforbryophytemolecularspecimenscollectedinthefield AT shevockjamesr acomparisonofdryingmethodsonthequalityforbryophytemolecularspecimenscollectedinthefield AT zhaojiancheng acomparisonofdryingmethodsonthequalityforbryophytemolecularspecimenscollectedinthefield AT shishuo acomparisonofdryingmethodsonthequalityforbryophytemolecularspecimenscollectedinthefield AT shenfengjiao comparisonofdryingmethodsonthequalityforbryophytemolecularspecimenscollectedinthefield AT lilin comparisonofdryingmethodsonthequalityforbryophytemolecularspecimenscollectedinthefield AT wangdan comparisonofdryingmethodsonthequalityforbryophytemolecularspecimenscollectedinthefield AT wangmengzhen comparisonofdryingmethodsonthequalityforbryophytemolecularspecimenscollectedinthefield AT shevockjamesr comparisonofdryingmethodsonthequalityforbryophytemolecularspecimenscollectedinthefield AT zhaojiancheng comparisonofdryingmethodsonthequalityforbryophytemolecularspecimenscollectedinthefield AT shishuo comparisonofdryingmethodsonthequalityforbryophytemolecularspecimenscollectedinthefield |