Cited by 83Diptera species taxonomy and behaviorMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsForensic Entomology and Diptera Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Factors affecting mitochondrial DNA quality from museum preserved Drosophila simulans

Dean, Matthew D., Ballard, J. William O.·2001·Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata

Abstract

In this study we investigate how traditional killing methods and storage regimes affected mitochondrial DNA quality in Drosophila simulans. Here we define quality with three criteria: (1) size of extracted DNA, (2) extraction yield, and (3) ability to amplify from four target regions. Killing methods had a significant effect on extraction yield, but not on PCR success. Highest DNA yields were extracted from specimens exposed to cyanide, while the lowest were from specimens killed in 70% ethanol. Specimens stored for two years contained badly sheared DNA, which translated into a significant decrease in PCR success compared to freshly assayed specimens. The most dramatic decrease in PCR success occurred in the 1822 bp and 1332 bp amplicons, compared to the 959 bp and 291 bp fragments. Naphthalene did not affect any aspect of DNA quality; time of storage affected PCR success regardless of naphthalene environment. This study serves to further refine our understanding of DNA degradation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1570-7458.2001.00784.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Rum or 70% ethanol is not an adequate long-term preservative for DNA diagnostics.

    “Note that rum or 70% ethanol is not an adequate long-term preservative for DNA diagnostics (Dean et al. , 2001; Vink et al. , 2005)”

    From Collection techniques for the analyses of pathogens in crustaceans (2017) · cites this paper as Dean et al. , 2001

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Dean, M. D., & Ballard, J. W. O.
Affiliations
Field Museum of Natural History (US)
Venue
Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-03
Volume
98
Issue
3
Pages
279-283
ISSN
  • 0013-8703 (ISSN-L)
  • 1570-7458
OpenAlex
W1970835031
Cited by
83
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata (publishedVersion)
Funders
La Trobe University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Diptera species taxonomy and behavior
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Forensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
Keywords
Drosophila simulans, museum specimens, DNA degradation, sample preservation, killing methods, PCR amplification success, DNA shearing, naphthalene, storage time, cyanide

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review