Non-destructive DNA extraction methods for entomophagous insects with emphasis on biological control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the major challenges in molecular analysis of arthropods, especially for natural enemies of insect pests, is the intact preservation of the specimens to be integrated into entomological collections. However, most of the DNA extraction protocols involve maceration of the tissue, avoiding the preservation of the original specimen. Two general methods were adapted into non-destructive DNA extraction protocols, DNeasy® Blood & Tissue Kit (A) and the CaCl 2 lysis buffer method (B), while the potential of the method with the alkaline lysis buffer (HotSHOT; C) was evaluated for the first time on insect specimens. These protocols were assessed for the recovery of DNA from Ceraeochrysa valida, Tamarixia radiata, and Hippodamia convergens. Photographical records showed that morphological features of the specimens were preserved after the DNA extraction process. COI fragments were successfully amplified with method A (100%), B (77%), and C (88%), respectively. We conclude that these non-destructive DNA extraction methods avoid the destruction of tissue and preserve the original insects and their morphological characteristics for future reference.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".