DNA recovery from microhymenoptera using six non-destructive methodologies with considerations for subsequent preparation of museum slides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of the tiny size of microhymenoptera, successful morphological identification typically requires specific mounting protocols that require time, skills, and experience. Molecular taxonomic identification is an alternative, but many DNA extraction protocols call for maceration of the whole specimen, which is not compatible with preserving museum vouchers. Thus, non-destructive DNA isolation methods are attractive alternatives for obtaining DNA without damaging sample individuals. However, their performance needs to be assessed in microhymenopterans. We evaluated six non-destructive methods: (A) DNeasy® Blood & Tissue Kit; (B) DNeasy® Blood & Tissue Kit, modified; (C) Protocol with CaCl 2 buffer; (D) Protocol with CaCl 2 buffer, modified; (E) HotSHOT; and (F) Direct PCR. The performance of each DNA extraction method was tested across several microhymenopteran species by attempting to amplify the mitochondrial gene COI from insect specimens of varying ages: 1 day, 4 months, 3 years, 12 years, and 23 years. Methods B and D allowed COI amplification in all insects, while methods A, C, and E were successful in DNA amplification from insects up to 12 years old. Method F, the fastest, was useful in insects up to 4 months old. Finally, we adapted permanent slide preparation in Canada balsam for every technique. The results reported allow for combining morphological and molecular methodologies for taxonomic studies.
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 | 0.000 | 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".