A comparison of drying methods on the quality for bryophyte molecular specimens collected in the field

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 23;17(11):e0277778. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277778. eCollection 2022.

Abstract

A major challenge in extracting high-quality DNA from bryophytes is the treatment of bryophyte material in the field. The existing and commonly used treatment methods in the field have several shortcomings. Natural drying methods can lead to DNA breaks. In addition, it is highly cumbersome to carry large quantities of silica gel in the field due to its weight and high risk of contamination among samples. In this study, we explored more convenient drying methods to treat bryophyte specimens and promote more efficient DNA recovery. The quantity and quality of genomic DNA extracted from every bryophyte species using different drying methods, including hot-air drying methods (150°C, 80°C, and 40°C), natural drying method, and silica gel drying method, were measured. Spectrophotometry, electrophoresis, and PCR amplification were performed to assess the effects of different drying methods. The results of total DNA purity, total DNA concentration, PCR success, and OD 260/230 ratios suggested that the hot-air drying (40-80°C) was the best method. The morphological comparison revealed that hot-air drying at 40°C and 80°C exerted no significant adverse effects on plant morphology and taxonomic studies. Thus, this method prevents rapid DNA degradation and silica gel pollution and saves the workforce from carrying large amounts of silica gel to the field. Several inexpensive devices, such as portable hairdryers, fan heaters, and electric blankets, are available that can be easily carried to the field for drying molecular specimens.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Bryophyta* / genetics
  • DNA
  • Desiccation / methods
  • Polymerase Chain Reaction
  • Silica Gel

Substances

  • Silica Gel
  • DNA

Grants and funding

The authors report the following sources of funding: National Natural Science Foundation of China [31370237 and 31370184], Youth Foundation of Education Department of Hebei Province, No. QN2017342, http://jyt.hebei.gov.cn/, awarded to SS, Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province under Grant, No. C2019205175, https://kjt.hebei.gov.cn/jjb/, awarded to LL, Innovation Fund Project for Graduate Student of Hebei Province, No. CXZZBS2019088, http://jyt.hebei.gov.cn/, awarded to FS, and Innovation Funding Program for Graduate Students of Hebei Normal University, No. CXZZSS2021066, http://www.hebtu.edu.cn/. awarded to FS. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.