Keeping it cool: Soil sample cold pack storage and DNA shipment up to 1 month does not impact metabarcoding results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the advances of sequencing tools, the fields of environmental microbiology and soil ecology have been transformed. Today, the unculturable majority of soil microbes can be sequenced. Although these tools give us tremendous power and open many doors to answer important questions, we must understand how sample processing may impact our results and interpretations. Here, we test the impacts of four soil storage methods on downstream amplicon metabarcoding and qPCR analyses for fungi and bacteria. We further investigate the impact of thaw time on extracted DNA to determine a safe length of time during which this can occur with minimal impact on study results. Overall, we find that storage using standard cold packs with subsequent storage at -20°C is little different than immediate storage in liquid nitrogen, suggesting that the historical and current method is adequate. We further find evidence that storage at room temperature or with aid of RNAlater can lead to changes in community composition and in the case of RNAlater, lower gene copies. We therefore advise against these storage methods for metabarcoding analyses. Finally, we show that over 1 month, DNA extract thaw time does not impact diversity or qPCR metrics. We hope that this work will help researchers working with soil bacteria and fungi make informed decisions about soil storage and transport to ensure repeatability and accuracy of results and interpretations.
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".