Today I determined DNA yield for several samples that I had not yet tested with the Qubit. Here are the results (along with previous Nanodrop results), which can also be found in this spreadsheet:
| Sample # | Nanodrop DNA conc. (ng/ul) | Qubit conc. (ng/ul) | Sample volume | Total DNA yield (ng) |
| past_100 | 7.36 | 2.28 | 200 | 456 |
| past_1 | 19.06 | 11.3 | 200 | 2260 |
| past_10 | 36.59 | 20 | 200 | 4000 |
| past_97 | 7.56 | too low | 200 | |
| past_w11 | 179.65 | 35.2 | 50 | 1760 |
| past_3 | 120.01 | 36.6 | 50 | 1830 |
| past_2 | 223.21 | 99.4 | 50 | 4970 |
| past_w1 | 437.86 | 330 | 50 | 16500 |
| past_4 | 198.65 | 47.2 | 50 | 2360 |
| past_w3 | 331.75 | 172 | 50 | 8600 |
| past_5 | 193.93 | 77 | 50 | 3850 |
| past_6 | 212.31 | 66.2 | 50 | 3310 |
| past_7 | 229.16 | 27.4 | 50 | 1370 |
| past_9 | 343.89 | 244 | 50 | 12200 |
| past_8 | 106.39 | 37.6 | 50 | 1880 |
| past_12 | 209.58 | 18.2 | 50 | 910 |
I also evaluated DNA quality on a gel for several samples. Here is the gel:
As can be seen here, some samples look pretty good, some look ok, and some look like crap. Why such a range? I have no idea, they were all preserved and extracted the same way. Past95 and past19 in particular are particularly bad. These samples should be re-extracted.