Cited by 146Invertebrate Taxonomy and EcologyEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesSpider Taxonomy and Behavior Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The effects of preservatives and temperatures on arachnid DNA

Abstract

We tested the effects of different preservatives and temperatures on the yield of spider and scorpion DNA useable for PCR amplification. Our experiment was designed to simulate conditions in the field and laboratory over a six-week time period, testing the preservatives RNAlater®, propylene glycol, and various ethanol concentrations. Three replicates of each preservation treatment were stored at five different temperature treatments; –80°C, –20°C, 2–4°C, 19–24°C, and 40°C. DNA was extracted and quality was assessed by electrophoresis on mini-gels, and by PCR amplification of high copy mitochondrial DNA fragments (cytochrome oxidase subunit I) and low copy nuclear DNA fragments (actin). Results show that RNAlater® and propylene glycol are significantly better than the other preservatives for high quality DNA preservation and that tissue is best stored at –80°C or –20°C. Storage in 95% ethanol is appropriate if specimens are stored at –20°C or –80°C. We believe our results can help guide biologists in choosing preservatives and temperatures for DNA-based research on arachnids, other arthropods and invertebrates in general.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1071/is04039

Cites

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 Vink et al. , 2005

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Vink, C. J., Thomas, S. M., Paquin, P., Hayashi, C. Y., & Hedin, M.
Affiliations
  • San Diego State University (US)
  • University of California, Riverside (US)
Corresponding author
Vink, Cor J.
Venue
Invertebrate Systematics
Published
2005-06-28
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
99-104
ISSN
  • 1445-5226 (ISSN-L)
  • 1447-2600
OpenAlex
W1978144288
Cited by
146
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 8
FWCI
4.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Invertebrate Systematics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Invertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Spider Taxonomy and Behavior Studies
Keywords
DNA preservation, Arachnida, spiders, scorpions, RNAlater, propylene glycol, ethanol storage, storage temperature, DNA quality, cytochrome c oxidase subunit I, actin, PCR amplification, museum specimens

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