Comparison of DNA extraction methods for polymerase chain reaction amplification of guanaco (Lama guanicoe) fecal DNA samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feces-based population genetic studies have become increasingly popular. However, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification rates from fecal material vary depending on the species, populations, loci, and extraction protocols. Here, we assessed the PCR amplification success of three microsatellite markers and a segment of the mitochondrial control region of DNA extracted from field-collected feces of guanaco (Lama guanicoe) using two protocols - Qiagen DNA Stool Kit and 2 cetyltrimethylammonium bromide/phenol:chloroform:isoamyl alcohol (2CTAB/PCI) method. Chelex resin treatment to remove inhibitors was also tested. Our results show that the mitochondrial locus was the most difficult to amplify. PCR success rates improved for all markers after Chelex treatment of extracted DNA, and 2CTAB/PCI method (95.83%) appeared to perform slightly better than stool kit (91.67%) for the nuclear markers. Amplification success was significantly influenced by the extraction method, Chelex treatment, and locus (P < 0.001) but not by the freshness of the feces (fresh vs old, P = 0.17). The repeatability levels were high without Chelex treatment (> 0.89), but they decreased slightly after treatment for amplification of nuclear markers and markedly after treatment for amplification of the mitochondrial control region. Thus, we showed that Chelex treatment gives high PCR success, especially for nuclear markers, and adequate DNA extraction rates can be achieved from L. guanicoe feces even from non-fresh fecal material. Although not significant, 2CTAB/PCI method tended to provide higher successful amplification rates on a whole set of samples, suggesting that the method could be particularly useful when using small sample sizes.
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".