Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 333

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Single‐tube library preparation for degraded DNA

Open access
Carøe, Christian, Gopalakrishnan, Shyam, Vinner, Lasse, Mak, Sarah S. T., Sinding, Mikkel Holger S., Samaniego, José A., Wales, Nathan, Sicheritz‐Pontén, Thomas, Gilbert, M. Thomas P.·2018·Methods in Ecology and Evolution

Abstract

In recent years, massive parallel sequencing has revolutionised the study of degraded DNA, thus enabling the field of ancient DNA to evolve into that of paleogenomics. Despite these advances, the recovery and sequencing of degraded DNA remains challenging due to limitations in the manipulation of chemically damaged and highly fragmented DNA molecules. In particular, the enzymatic reactions and DNA purification steps during library preparation can result in DNA template loss and sequencing biases, affecting downstream analyses. The development of library preparation methods that circumvent these obstacles and enable higher throughput are therefore of interest to researchers working with degraded DNA. In this study, we compare four Illumina library preparation protocols, including two “single‐tube” methods developed for this study with the explicit aim of improving data quality and reducing preparation time and expenses. The methods are tested on grey wolf (Canis lupus) museum specimens. We found single‐tube protocols increase library complexity, yield more reads that map uniquely to the reference genome, reduce processing time, and may decrease laboratory costs by 90%. Given the advantages of single‐tube library preparations, we anticipate these methods will be of considerable interest to the growing field of paleogenomics and other applications investigating degraded DNA.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/2041-210x.12871

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 333

Metadata

Authors
Carøe, C., Gopalakrishnan, S., Vinner, L., Mak, S. S. T., Sinding, M. H. S., Samaniego, J. A., Wales, N., Sicheritz‐Pontén, T., & Gilbert, M. T. P.
Venue
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-10-10
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
410-419
ISSN
2041-210X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2747773696
Cited by
333
References
11
FWCI
6.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Single‐tube library preparation for degraded DNA. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/2041-210x.12871
The paper
Carøe, C., Gopalakrishnan, S., Vinner, L., Mak, S. S. T., Sinding, M. H. S., Samaniego, J. A., Wales, N., Sicheritz‐Pontén, T., & Gilbert, M. T. P. (2018). Single‐tube library preparation for degraded DNA. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12871

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.