English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background  Different methods have been used to preserve phlebotomine sand flies for research purposes, including for taxonomic studies and detection of  Leishmania  spp. Here, we evaluated the effect of various preservation methods at different storage times on phlebotomine sand fly DNA concentration and purity.    Methods  Field-collected phlebotomine sand flies were individually stored in 70% ethanol (G1) and 95% ethanol (G2) at room temperature, 70% ethanol (G3) and 95% ethanol (G4) at 8 °C or frozen dry (i.e. no preservation solution) at − 20 °C (G5). DNA concentration and purity were assessed at various storage times (T1, ≤ 12 h; T2, 3 months; T3, 6 months; T4, 9 months; and T5, 12 months). Fragments of the cytochrome  c  oxidase subunit 1 ( cox 1) and cacophony ( CAC ) genes of phlebotomine sand flies were also amplified.    Results  Mean DNA concentration ( P  = 0.178) and 260/280 purity ratios ( P  = 0.584) did not vary significantly among various preservation methods and storage times. Within each group, DNA concentration varied in G1 (Kruskal-Wallis H-test,  P  = 0.009) for T3  vs  T4 (Dunn’s  post-hoc ,  P  < 0.05), and in G2 (Kruskal-Wallis H-test,  P  = 0.004) for T1  vs  T2 and T1  vs  T4 (Dunn’s  post-hoc ,  P  < 0.05). For 260/280 purity ratios, the only statistically significant difference was found for G5 (Kruskal-Wallis H-test,  P  = 0.020) between T1  vs  T4 (Dunn’s  post-hoc  test,  P  < 0.05). The  cox 1 and  CAC  genes were successfully amplified, regardless of the preservation method and storage time; except in one sample from G2 at T1, for which the  CAC  gene failed to amplify.    Conclusions  The preservation methods and storage times herein evaluated did not affect the concentration and purity of DNA samples obtained from field-collected phlebotomine sand flies, for up to 12 months. Furthermore, these preservation methods did not interfere with PCR amplification of  CAC  and  cox 1 genes, being suitable for molecular analyses under the conditions studied herein.

Evaluation of different storage times and preservation methods on phlebotomine sand fly DNA concentration and purity