The effects of preservatives and temperatures on arachnid DNA

By C. Vink, Steven M. Thomas, P. Paquin, C. Hayashi, M. Hedin. 2005

140 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Experience leads to preference: experienced females prefer brush-legged males in a population of syntopic wolf spiders (2007, methodology): “The primers used for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification and sequencing were C1-J-1718-spider (5#-AATCATARGGATATTGGAAC-3#) plus C1-N-2776-spider (5#-GGATAATCAGAATANCGNCGAGG-3#) (Vink et al. 2005).”
A practical guide to DNA metabarcoding for entomological ecologists (2020, background): “Certain other preservatives, such as ethylene glycol, more dilute ethanol (< 70%), and dimethyl sulphoxide, are unsuitable for DNA preservation (Vink et al., 2005; Moreau et al., 2013), and formaldehyde must be avoided as it actively degrades DNA.”
Multi‐gene phylogenetic analysis of south‐east Asian pest members of the Bactrocera dorsalis species complex (Diptera: Tephritidae) does not support current taxonomy (2014, methodology): “The principle method of collection consisted of luring male flies into methyl eugenol (ME) insecticide-baited hanging traps containing propylene glycol as a preserving agent (Vink et al. 2005; Thomas 2008).”
The role of habitat complexity on spider communities in native alpine grasslands of New Zealand (2013, methodology): “Monopropylene glycol was used in pitfall traps as it prevents captured specimens from drying out in the field and adequately preserves specimens for later molecular analyses (Vink et al., 2005).”