Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

How to store a beetle larva? Comparing temporal effects of common fluid preservation methods on color, shape, and DNA quality

M. Novák, P. Jakubec, K. Mahlerová, S. Montoya-Molina, J. Qubaiová

. 2024 ; 61 (3) : 541-553. [pub] 20240513

Language English Country England, Great Britain

Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, Comparative Study

E-resources Online Full text

NLK ProQuest Central from 2016-01-01 to 1 year ago
Health & Medicine (ProQuest) from 2016-01-01 to 1 year ago
Public Health Database (ProQuest) from 2016-01-01 to 1 year ago

Proper fixing and long-term preservation of entomological evidence are essential in collections and research and crucial in applied fields such as forensic entomology. Incorrectly stored samples may lose important morphological features over time, rendering molecular analyses exceedingly difficult. The most effective method for preserving soft samples such as larvae is fluid preservation. It uses a combination of a wide range of fixatives and storage fluids. However, very little comparative work has been done to determine the effects of long-term storage on sample quality in terms of color, shape, and DNA stability. Moreover, the current golden standard in forensic entomology has been tailored for age estimation of larvae of Diptera, which differ from larvae of Coleoptera in morphology and subsequently in applied methods. We compared the effects of combinations of 6 commonly used fixatives and 6 commonly used storage fluids on midsized larvae of the forensically important beetle, Necrodes littoralis (Linnaeus, 1758), in terms of color, shape, and suitability for DNA analyses over a 2-yr period. We were looking for combinations that can preserve specimens in a satisfactory state, can be used on a regular basis, do not require advanced protection or skills of the personnel, and are not toxic or too harmful to the environment. We found not only several methods that scored significantly better in the tested parameters compared with the golden standard but also several common methods that should be avoided. The effects of agents on each tested category are discussed in detail.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc24013956
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20240905133818.0
007      
ta
008      
240725s2024 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1093/jme/tjad154 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)38085664
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a Novák, Martin $u Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, Praha, Suchdol 165 00, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000181584105
245    10
$a How to store a beetle larva? Comparing temporal effects of common fluid preservation methods on color, shape, and DNA quality / $c M. Novák, P. Jakubec, K. Mahlerová, S. Montoya-Molina, J. Qubaiová
520    9_
$a Proper fixing and long-term preservation of entomological evidence are essential in collections and research and crucial in applied fields such as forensic entomology. Incorrectly stored samples may lose important morphological features over time, rendering molecular analyses exceedingly difficult. The most effective method for preserving soft samples such as larvae is fluid preservation. It uses a combination of a wide range of fixatives and storage fluids. However, very little comparative work has been done to determine the effects of long-term storage on sample quality in terms of color, shape, and DNA stability. Moreover, the current golden standard in forensic entomology has been tailored for age estimation of larvae of Diptera, which differ from larvae of Coleoptera in morphology and subsequently in applied methods. We compared the effects of combinations of 6 commonly used fixatives and 6 commonly used storage fluids on midsized larvae of the forensically important beetle, Necrodes littoralis (Linnaeus, 1758), in terms of color, shape, and suitability for DNA analyses over a 2-yr period. We were looking for combinations that can preserve specimens in a satisfactory state, can be used on a regular basis, do not require advanced protection or skills of the personnel, and are not toxic or too harmful to the environment. We found not only several methods that scored significantly better in the tested parameters compared with the golden standard but also several common methods that should be avoided. The effects of agents on each tested category are discussed in detail.
650    _2
$a zvířata $7 D000818
650    12
$a brouci $7 D001517
650    12
$a larva $x růst a vývoj $7 D007814
650    12
$a DNA $x analýza $7 D004247
650    _2
$a odběr biologického vzorku $x metody $7 D013048
650    _2
$a forenzní entomologie $x metody $7 D000081230
650    _2
$a ochrana biologická $x metody $7 D011309
650    _2
$a časové faktory $7 D013997
650    _2
$a barva $7 D003116
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
700    1_
$a Jakubec, Pavel $u Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, Praha, Suchdol 165 00, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000173405496
700    1_
$a Mahlerová, Karolina $u Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, Praha, Suchdol 165 00, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Montoya-Molina, Santiago $u Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, Praha, Suchdol 165 00, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000156586109
700    1_
$a Qubaiová, Jarin $u Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, Praha, Suchdol 165 00, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00005637 $t Journal of medical entomology $x 1938-2928 $g Roč. 61, č. 3 (2024), s. 541-553
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38085664 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20240725 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20240905133812 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2143642 $s 1225822
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2024 $b 61 $c 3 $d 541-553 $e 20240513 $i 1938-2928 $m Journal of medical entomology $n J Med Entomol $x MED00005637
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20240725

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...