Protocols for dry <scp>DNA</scp> storage and shipment at room temperature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The globalization of DNA barcoding will require core analytical facilities to develop cost-effective, efficient protocols for the shipment and archival storage of DNA extracts and PCR products. We evaluated three dry-state DNA stabilization systems: commercial Biomatrica(®) DNAstable(®) plates, home-made trehalose and polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) plates on 96-well panels of insect DNA stored at 56 °C and at room temperature. Controls included unprotected samples that were stored dry at room temperature and at 56 °C, and diluted samples held at 4 °C and at -20 °C. PCR and selective sequencing were performed over a 4-year interval to test the condition of DNA extracts. Biomatrica(®) provided better protection of DNA at 56 °C and at room temperature than trehalose and PVA, especially for diluted samples. PVA was the second best protectant after Biomatrica(®) at room temperature, whereas trehalose was the second best protectant at 56 °C. In spite of lower PCR success, the DNA stored at -20 °C yielded longer sequence reads and stronger signal, indicating that temperature is a crucial factor for DNA quality which has to be considered especially for long-term storage. Although it is premature to advocate a transition to DNA storage at room temperature, dry storage provides an additional layer of security for frozen samples, protecting them from degradation in the event of freezer failure. All three forms of DNA preservation enable shipment of dry DNA and PCR products between barcoding facilities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.063 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".