Lowered cameras reveal hidden behaviors of Antarctic krill.

Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba, hereafter 'krill') exemplify the methodological challenges of studying small, mobile, aggregating pelagic organisms.1 Krill are a central species in the Southern Ocean food web, provide important biogeochemical functions and support a valuable commercial fishery.2 Most of what we know about krill has been derived from acoustic surveys and net samples, the former being essential for estimating krill biomass and catch limits. However, understanding krill behavior, particularly in the poorly-studied autumn-winter seasons, is key for management and conservation. Here, we used seasonal video observations collected with a profiling camera system of krill along the Western Antarctic Peninsula to reveal krill vertical distribution, aggregation density and individual behaviors that have remained hidden from traditional sampling methods.3.

Optimizing the DNA yield for molecular analysis from cytologic preparations.

BACKGROUND: Cytology smears and cytospin preparations are increasingly being used for molecular testing. With these limited samples, optimizing tissue extraction to maximize the DNA yield is, therefore, critical. This study examined 2 common methods of tissue extraction and compared DNA yields from different types of glass slides. METHODS: The H226 lung cancer cell line and 5 clinical samples of cellular effusions were used to prepare Diff-Quik-stained cytospins on 4 types of glass slides: fully frosted (FF), nonfrosted (NF), positively charged (PC), and silane-coated (SC). Tissue extraction was performed by either scalpel-blade scraping or cell lifting with the Pinpoint Slide DNA Isolation System (Zymo Research). DNA was extracted with the QIAamp DNA Mini Kit (Qiagen) and was quantified with the Quant-iT PicoGreen Kit (Life Technologies). RESULTS: The DNA yield in cell-line cytospins was significantly lower from FF slides versus NF, PC, and SC slides with both scraping and cell-lifting methods. In addition, scraping yielded significantly more DNA than cell lifting (P = .005). DNA yields from 5 clinical effusion cases with FF and NF slides showed results similar to the results for cell-line samples, with scraping consistently yielding more DNA than cell lifting and with NF slides outperforming FF slides. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing the DNA yield extracted from cytology specimens maximizes the chances of successful molecular testing and is critical in cases of low or marginal cellularity. This study demonstrates the following: 1) scraping yields more DNA than cell lifting, and 2) NF slides yield more DNA than FF slides.