A multi-criteria decision-making approach for comparing sample preservation and DNA extraction methods from swine feces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Molecular microbiological methods, such as competetive PCR, real-time PCR, denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) and large-scale parallel-pyrosequencing, require the extraction of sufficient quantity of high quality DNA from microbiologically and chemically complex matrices. Due to difficulties in the field to standardize/select the optimum DNA preservation-extraction methods in view of laboratories differences, this article attempts to present a straight-forward mathematical framework for comparing some of the most commonly used methods. To this end, as a case study, the problem of selecting an optimum sample preservation-DNA extraction strategy for obtaining total bacterial DNA from swine feces was considered. Two sample preservation methods (liquid nitrogen and RNAlater?) and seven extraction techniques were paired and compared under six quantitative DNA analysis criteria: yield of extraction, purity of extracted DNA (A260/280 and A 260/230 ratios), duration of extraction, degradation degree of DNA, and cost. From a practical point of view, it is unlikely that a single sample preservation-DNA extraction strategy can be optimum for all selected criteria. Hence, a systematic multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach was used to compare the methods. As a result, the ZR Fecal DNA MiniPrepTM DNA extraction kit for samples preserved either with liquid nitrogen or RNAlater? were identified as potential optimum solutions for obtaining total bacterial DNA from swine feces. Considering the need for practicality for in situ applications, we would recommend liquid nitrogen as sample preservation method, along with the ZR Fecal DNA MiniPrepTM kit. Total bacterial DNA obtained by this strategy can be suitable for downstream PCR-based DNA analyses of swine feces.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".